20220672 Ver 2_Application Attachments_20231103

Vermillion Village —
Request for Permit
Modification
hlovember 2023
_ _ �.G -•may:
�.a k • •, 1
• A.
�.
IL
ti f . YT-1)y
4. go
%
PREPARED BY:
Greenman -Pedersen, Inc.
PREPARED FOR:
Embrey Partners, LLC

GPI
Ms. Samantha Dailey
Chief
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District
8430 University Executive
Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte NC 28262
704.589.8397
Engineering f Design I Planning I Construction Management
November 1, 2023
Ms. Sue Homewood
401 & Buffers Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
919.707.3679
Subject: Vermillion Village Development (SAW-2016-01916, DWR: #22-0672)
Dear Ms. Samantha Dailey and Ms. Sue Homewood:
During the development of the Vermillion Village Development project NCDOT and the Town of
Huntersville requested a portion of Huntersville-Concord Road be widened within the vicinity of
the property. This proposed roadway widening will require a culvert extension and headwall to be
installed upstream of the existing culvert within the property. The Project Owner has offered to
construct the extension and headwall to aid in the NCDOT roadway widening. The proposed
extension will inherently require stream impacts to the stream located on the Vermilion Village
property; however, these impacts are less than the thresholds established in the NWPs and Water
Quality Certifications. The following request is to modify the previously submitted PCN documents
on June 23, 2022; see Attachment 1. The impacts outlined in the previous submission included
0.002 acres of stream impact for a road crossing; see Figure 1 below for proposed and previous
impact locations.
Prfmous NW
Ho. Si � T�--- Gmwmr PI -
(Figure 1: Proposed Project Plan with previous and proposed impacts)
Greenman -Pedersen, Inc. 1308 HWY 258 N Kinston, NC 28504 p 910.663.4123
An Equal Opportunity Employer

GPIFrgineerinq I Design I Planning I Construction Management
The proposed modification will include temporary and permanent stream bed impacts to the UT
to South Prong Clark Creek resulting from the road widening. These impacts include the
installation of the culvert extension, grading to ensure a smooth and stable transition from the
existing channel to the culvert extension, and temporary impact during construction for equipment
access (see Attachment 2: Culvert and Impacts Exhibit). Avoidance and minimization will be as
previously proposed in the original PCN and NWP/WQC guidance: the proposed activities will
follow all NC Sediment and Erosion Control Standards and make all efforts to minimize impact to
vegetation and aquatic resources while conducting the work. We are requesting a waiver from
Regional Condition Item C.9, with regard to burying a portion of the pipe, as this is an existing
NCDOT pipe crossing that was installed in the late 1980s, from what our research concluded.
Table 1 below lists the previously permitted impacts along with the proposed impacts associated
with the roadway expansion.
Previously Permitted 3 0 1 33 0.002
Proposed 5 17 1 36 0.006
Cumulative Impact (AC) 0.008
(Table 1: Previous and Proposed Impacts)
Project site condition narrative, maps (parcel, aerial, USGS topo, soils, and existing condition),
Jurisdictional Determination, and endangered and threatened species report can be found in
Attachment 1 and encompasses the area for the proposed culvert extension. Attachment 2
includes the updated drawings for the proposed culvert. Attachment 3 includes the hydraulic and
hydrologic analysis of the culvert.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss the proposed project further.
Greenman -Pedersen, Inc. (GPI)
Sincerely,
n�UJ� ��
Jonathan D. Hinkle, PE
Lead Environmental Engineer / North Carolina Engineering Manager
Vice President
[e-mail]
910.663.4123
CC:
File
Mr. Joel Albea, Embrey Partners, LLC
Mr. Brian Vitta, Embrey Partners, LLC
Greenman -Pedersen, Inc. 1308 HWY 258 N Kinston, NC 28504 p 910.663.4123
An Equal Opportunity Employer

Engineering I Design I Planning I Construction Management
Attachment 1:
Previously Submitted PCN: NWP - 29
(DWR # 22 - 0672)
www.gpinet.com Engineering I Design I Planning I Construction

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions AEPG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Lerr :--I c P;*ifhier, PLLC.
SAW - 2016 - 01916 BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Vermillion Village
2. Work Type: Private❑ Institutional ❑
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
NWP 29 request for residential development
Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
Government ❑ Commercial ❑
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: Bowman Development (Applicant)
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: WEPG, PLLC c/o Heath Caldwell
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
35.4149,-80.8381
North Church Street, Huntersville, NC 28078
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form I31a]: 01902202, 01902201
9. Project Location -County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Huntersville
11. Project Information —Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: South Prong Clarke Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]:Rocky (03040105)
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
U Nationwide Permit # 29
❑ Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
�✓ Section 10 & 404 ❑
❑Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
CZ0I_irZ1y[4111110011%

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
April 14, 2022
Assigned Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Mr. Doug Perez
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Mr. Paul Wojoski
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
Wetlands & Storm Water Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
Subiect: SAW-2016-01916; Pre -Construction Notification for NWP #29 for the Vermillion
Villages site in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
USACE Assigned Project Manager and Messrs. Perez, Wojoski, and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a request for Nationwide Permit #29 for the Vermillion Villages site on 29.43 acres
located east of N. Church Street in Huntersville, NC. The site is a proposed residential
development and consists of three streams and six wetlands. An Approved Jurisdictional
Determination Request was authorized in December 2016. Please refer to the Jurisdictional
Determination Information section for information on onsite surface waters.
As shown on the attached exhibits, the proposed project will include permanent impacts to one
stream for road crossing access. Total permanent impacts proposed include 33 linear feet (0.002
acres) of stream impact (Stream J). These access crossings were necessary due to City
connectivity requirements as well as constraints from existing sewer line infrastructure.
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
www.wetiands-epg.com
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PM 283
Asheville, NC 28805

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Overall impacts to site surface waters associated with the proposed development were limited
through site selection location, design, and the location/orientation of the proposed lots and
access routes. Headwalls are proposed at the crossing and, where possible, 2:1 slopes will be
implemented to limit impacts to site surface waters. The applicant has demonstrated substantial
avoidance and minimization efforts in which 94.7% of the 685 linear feet onsite streams will be
avoided. No wetland impacts are proposed as a part of this project. Due to limited site impacts,
no mitigation is proposed.
Also enclosed is a copy of our Threatened/Endangered Species Evaluation for the site. No listed
species were identified within the project area. The concurrence determination on listed species
and their critical habitat, as designated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, was
obtained by Fish & Wildlife services. Please refer to the Threatened and Endangered Species
Evaluation Section for additional details on the terrestrial species evaluation and a copy of the
FWS concurrence. Thank you for your consideration and please contact me if you have any
questions, [phone] or email at heath. cal dwell( a�wetlands-ep com.
Sincerely,
V�rauiw
Heath Caldwell
Environmental Scientist
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
www.wetiands-epg.com
Len Rindner, PWS
Principal
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

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

ai
a
ob
C
0
m
E
102
cm
C
.y
N
V
01
IL
Zi
0

k
x
!
E
0.
)
AD
CD
J
§
!
to)
10,
\
k
)
k=0
E
#
\
)J
L
E
&
�!a
i
k_E
2
«
■
-
k)\
k\�
{
&
z
k�7
®
{�\C
\k
Zo
I
/
0
Ef�
CL
'{$;/
CL
k�
/\
)k))
z)
z
zl
�
§
dODD
ao
z
0oo))

O
z
O
d
E.
0
T
O
0
E
r
LL
zo
zo
O
a
m
m
c
c
0
0
n
O
z
O
Z,
I
v
z
O
c
m
E
m
0
O
m
.Q
a
a i
o
00
cc
�� rn
2 E
O E
=e
� a
m
m
0
0
r
d
rn
04
N
G U?
W
CD
d C)
E
8
d
Fl

f
0
w
/
k
k8Z)
Q
�
\
� \
�
§cik
N
,
E
b
\
&
\
�
o
0
)
f
)
�
MLD
MO
!
f
k k
,
2
.
I
k!
E.
|
!
f I
! ! § )
\
\ F.-
o
!
k LU
N>
d
k`
z
m k— !
r I
! CN
��#

d
a
0
C9
c
c
a
m
c
m
E
c
O
C
E LU
z °d
U r Cl)
Z c4 Z)
m
LO
8
LO o
C m N
L N
a s 'chi U a N
*
O
N
2
Z
4)
.O
a
O
L.
a
.a
e�
_
E
0
.O
a
Al

7
2 Nr
IL
A . q
E
a
%&
■ §
»
s
- 04
S
7
E G
\
)\
04
L\CD
04
a |
!
\
£CD
d -
aI
w
d!G
�
k
!
{
a
ccn
k/
�ID
E
E
■
§)6
a
kkx
k
§
No
_
a0
§
/
\
/
k
/
k
8
\
%
�/
�/E
_
.
)
ƒt
S
k
k
! !
m

«\
kV
$ E
§�
20
2 2
/\
$f
c
§
�2k
0
{{\s
lkka
0 \co
DLO
k %
{
\
>
c c
$$x
g
_
22eo
=UE
/
l7zw
>0
'
>
\
m
0 0 75
■
)
§
\
07 /
`
T
k
-
f
/
kook
\
f
R-a
B
k
-
§
2
g
(
°
0 0
)22
§>�
1.
`
. La_
Rk
-
a)§
�
.35
{
©
2
k
\
�
G
-
\
®
.a=to
§ u I
°
§
;
L
G
o
�
! 2 E
CL
2
§
I
f!
/
a
0—■
f oL. 2
2
i
s
-d/
\
a
F-$ 7
.0 0
•
Ve�3
§
j
f
a
Lel

LO
d
§
$
�
\
�
§
�
�
$
! a
2
! �
&
k
cL
k
tr
!
u
o
�
k
§
�
$
o
c
M
§
E
2 �
'
i 2
fcLE
M
\
5
' 2
k
0
� k
'
.
! \
%
7
§
cL
a
M a
a
`
a
o
a
E
M
�
o �
2
_
r
6
°
■ _
§
\
/
kco
c
k
®
�
w
= ƒ
Co
` 2
d F
E
uo

z
c
O
v�i
Y
�
�
Z
U
Z
a
W
-
0
!
v
c
o
z
m
�
°
Q
`o
m
v
o
L
3
CL
o
V
C
E
m Z
E G
m a
O ci
o �D
3 p
y N
m
S.
E
=
N
€
c
m
m
z
Occ
V
le0
a 6
all
C
O
W
U
U)
Z)
z
m
r
SO
.0
r
F-
N
Z,
•s
V
m
m
m
0
u
m �
Q 0
CL
m
a
a °
Q
°. _o
r V
o
0 col
cE
m CL
ocr
r
m c
.0
v �
c
= c
0
a
o
c
m r
v
m
c C
o dt
v �
a
= o
a �
E
@r
g a
m
� o
v=
•s =
Q
c E
o
ro
_a a
c
0
I CM
�Q
0
z q
p 'v
Y cc
0
c @
m m
E a
Q a
r
4.0
C
C
V
C.
E
v
CD
O
C.
01
a

�
E
E
2
�
CL
�
f
cc
R
>
d
!�
cr
E
.
r,
f
]
a
*
>
co ( |
|
)
�
2
LD
■
,
s LD
�
�
%
CL
"
g §
«
■� � �
§ §f
>
E)
CCL
7/
■� .
ez
2)
L
\
k
co
J
C
*
>
7
LD
A
§
!
)
A
k�
�
5
q j
CL
i
CL E
§
E
g
o
2
Lcl�l
k\
of
kf �k
00 ��
k
■
g
3
cr
-
©
E
a
2
!
E
CL
'
_
2
CL
�
.
f
!
$
c
B
E
E
0
f
c
$
g
2
co o
n
W n
W o
n
W n
E
u
A
z
n

2
W
k
0
\)g
ok
-
.Lu
/\/
§\
awe
to
0
'
�'
■
2
f
E
E #
C
/��
2�
-/§
o$
\7k
;£2
»k70
/E
In 2%
D
a
2
kj$
�k
)2\
C
°x
.E
B E
E
o
CL
( /\
!
�_
�e
k7k)•
a
0
a§
E 0 W
W
0�
02cncL
>
5 & f
v
£ t
)f-a)
E
w§§|a)§
«�¥2a-CL
k)wk!f7
CL(n
—r—
o§(g|
§m)/
i
7=E2�-
7§ 2
k k$
f k
:
w ■
E w
£ a)&
§«$§�°�F
r-0CL
GG>{Jj�k
0
® 0
o■
a i
r-
EnL�g�
f/§§d3§2
\
k
/
k
/
R
k
E
\
2
k
�
R

O
z
a
c
E
0
c
L
3
E
2
}
z
}
a
N
O
W
s
E
L
e
E
E
8
15
e
E
E
8
E
E
0
E
E
E
2
2

C
O
E
102
m
C
E
Q.
Q.
3
co
L,
r
z
c
0
.a
C
H
�7
co
0
c
K
m
U
.0 a
� N
3 N
3 a
o z
z
c
0
0
o
'S x
c ro
m c
0
a A
_a
N R
Z
c
0
L
rr
Q.
E
7
V
M

c
0
E
L
.a
to
i{S
O
Q.
24
tm
3
as
Cl)
qq
m
.Q
CL
r
z
z
d
_ = L
O N Q N
z0
O
i
z0
i
a
A
0
E
E
c
A
m
c
E
c
c
.m
.Q
a
z° m z :E
m Om
i 0 i
0
OO Cb
N O
m
E
w
IL
O
V)
w
J
z
m
J
z0
i1
l

a) L
w U
C �
to
:O N
N C
3
m�
U •�
a) U
to
to m
O'D
c to
L @
U a
L
0 V1 -6
� N U
m
o am
U a) to
L_
@ +� O
ESE
�v m
� � m
to of )i
m
O)
N O Z
` Q
N
L
�ZLL
�mm
L
� 0
C 0
U
c
as O Q
v
c @�
m E On.
@ m
t W
Q = F-
c
0
7
rr
to
L.
O
V
�0
s
H
LL
�o
c
CD
H
W
Z
i
E
U
Vl
� N
as @
aO
M O
E
C
W >L
L >
N Cn
3 0
-MV
O0
a a
U)D�
c
0
E
7
rr
to
EL
O
V
O
c
2M
.to
to
c
N
.O
O
O
LL
0o
A
c
v
LL
a
w
m
J

O
rn
U
C
'O
�+
N
C
t
U
O
@
U
@
�
N
C
p�
C
M0
d
o •�
=
rn
E O
N
G)
a
:i
E
E
a
t
CN
C
E
G
Q
c
m
m
k
m
C
O
C_
9p
C
a
E
O
n
m
a
v
3
0
r
m
m
E
0
O
0
0
E
E
c
O
a
a
m
a
a
m
r
m
m
0
O
T
c 9
O
Em
o a
c c
0
o 0
h
v C
m m
c m
C
m
O p
G =
1 V%
C 9
m
E ci
m
vo c
v 10
'g c
c
_ V
N
0 -0
m
F
3
O
a
$ m
C�
'3
� ro
a
FL °
m O
3) n
ti
z
a
m
s
0
C
of
Y'i
* 0

k
)
m w
m\
D�
/e
L)
§. 0
ID�k
() E$z
§\ 2)f
�LD !�§
7 \7
0)o
)j)
§\ $7|
E j)(
Bo z DE
km k�k
`° �kk
�#2
CL
c}
\�M
�z—if
z
|2#�`(
00,
, �o.2 -
R
§/)■©■k
(®[)\G§
=2a.
)�E
`aeee,r
§§r2£a]
§r]m)f§
[f15oL
|
§
c 0 M75 i
\
2
kS.6E -o
\
|
2
EE®;-aa
t
#
@
u,|m
—
0
k{7aa■�
I �
$
@/)\\)\
\
.......
■
|a
!
a 45

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Anent Authorization Letter
The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on your behalf in matters related to aquatic
resource (i.e. stream/wetlands) identification/mapping and regulatory permitting. The
undersigned, who are either registered property owners or legally authorized to conduct due
diligence activities on the property as identified below, do hereby authorize associates of
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC, Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group (WEPG) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance, and acceptance of applicable
permit(s) and/or certification(s).
Project/Site Name: Vermillion Village
Property Address: North Church Street, Huntersville, NC 28078
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 01902202, 01902201
Select one: I am other
Name: Nate Bowman
Company: Bowman Development
Mailing Address: 13815 Cinnabar Place Huntersville, NC 28078
Telephone Number: [phone] ext. 105
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
O 4wd l Interested Buyer* / Other*
The Interested Buyer/01her acknowledges that an agreement and/or formal contract to purchase and/or conduct
due diligence activities exists between the current properly owner and the signatory of this authorization in cases
inhere the properly is not owned by the signatory.
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
[e-mail]

N
_05
N
Q
05
10
Maps/Plans

I LLAG E
V' Hurtersville
® 115
Mobile Auto
2452
Chlurch St
5herW00d,Dr
125
Ile ARP Church 19
,y
x
rp
p
� m
American Legion 19
2452
Muria Made Distillery
V Mini 1j
1P 7
Hubbard's Cupboards 19 & Fixtures
id Sparrows
hen
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
t S[ St
v
v
.N
`tu
C
7
z
9
R/
�ilat' Gta`$u,
Yappy Hour Bakery
Mobile boutique arl
Harvey's Hun
WFree Delivery
on 1 st Order
D1d Vermillion Dr
w
A
N
2a Pamela H. Bowman Park
N Main Street Coffee
3.., o�eti sr�t pc
I a
Acres: VERMILLION VILLAGE Prepared for:
+/- 29.43 Mecklenburg Co., NC BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE
1 VICINITY MAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
08124121 Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification BLK ALL

17 Ir FL
-
�ffEF
all.
rd�__1499 ] i a ---I
31n 3 �W - If-, 1 " _ 1 �f�
Main St 4 1
`� f PROJECT BOUNDARY PARCEL: 01902201 E 1 1
�• STUDY LIMITS VERMILLION ANCHOR
o M I LL VI LLAG E LLC
r a + ! �_ IUC 1 ri E •� - 13815 CINNABAR PL
HUNTERSVILLE NC 28078 ! !
yy �h r I ccAr
I
■1� � °6"'J r � L
EP' ,/
4*
�I
!y
�.17317i'-
"� 1�
------_BighamSt ` / -
\ E
��- _;,3rd,St ,�� ��.�� \ice' �p �,� , �� •�.
PARCEL: 01902202
VERMILLION ANCHOR 4-
a } ®q MILL VILLAGE LLC
r
I� , a 13815 CINNABAR PL
HUNTERSVILLE NC 28078
r v
- E I J014� �'
� CIIE I -r-� -} ---S�c`a-n-iT•5�t �'. , �� ly:��iA�-�,�o� �'�`�
a
ell
Al
. f
'Parcel Information Provided by
Charlotte Mecklenburg Polaris 3G 4 r' < /
Acres: VERMILLION VILLAGE Prepared for:
FIGURE
+/- 29.43 Mecklenburg Co., NC BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
_
2 PARCEL MAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
08124121 Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification BILK ,

r.
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS It.
•'- � � •r ''' � .. .ter'
= ��.444.
Y
AFA
)46
ti
• . 4.
h '
Sri
N Aerial Imagery Provided by y '�Jkgs,'`•'=
Charlotte Mecklenburg Polaris 3G
I y+r
Acres: VERMILLION VILLAGE Prepared for:
+/- 29.43 BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE Mecklenburg Co., NC
3 AERIAL MAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
08124121 Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification BILK

39
" now ■ + .,
+f 1 PROJECT BOUNDARY+r f�
STUDY LIMITST''� t
- rt ■ m.
y w ,
J �
" r
■ ■
it
�' �'� ♦ 1 ` l =_' I� ` r SOUTH PRONG
s�* w r•� ��� CLARKECREEK
SON
■ .
Big s
■ T
— 440 / - �_ ■ 6 S 1 h
Or d
ILOCATION '
Lat: 35.4149 - N � ' L� • ��
Long: -80.8381 2W USGS QUAD
i� g Cornelius NC SCALES Jr' ■�—
H UC: 03040105
ROCKY 1993 1:24,000 a�r` r f�
Acres: VERMILLION VILLAGE Prepared for:
WFPG
FIGURE
+/- 29.43 Mecklenburg Co., NC BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
_
4 USGS MAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
08124121 Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification BLK

W
I LO/
N ER Soil Survey Manuscript
klenburg County 1980
Map Unit Symbol
L J L_
Totals for Area of Interest
Acres:
+/- 29.43
FIGURE
5
08124121
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS CeB 2
Map Unit Name
Cecil sandy day loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Cecil sandy clay loam. 8 to 15
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Cecil -Urban land complex 2 to
8 percent slopes
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPT MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
T6
29.8
Prepared for:
3OWMAN DEVELOPMENT
Drawn By: I Reviewed By
BILK
Percent of AOI
J
25 "Ll
100.0%

U)
N (n Z
OUZO
V G
L LiXZ
o Lu 0
U
\ � P
} } o
\r\ 0
0
0 LO
N N
'` oasac J
\° o_ p Lu
z
aQQ '�� z �
F
CAC4U Qc,>Za'SU
F O Z LL Q LL
V °"�—�U—
D J C CD H O
r W W
�Z W 2
— Cn W
LOCO
Q
\\ X W _ oo one
W
z
r
"
5
o
am
�2,p
�5�ooh
W
a�
5"
(D U
W U
Q
d F_ Q<
a-
LLl U
U U
0 Q
U
Z
Q
Q Z
z00
J OJ
zM
o
v
O
Q
JJ
CT=/^
LJJU
d—O
F O
Q QO
O
W+i
CD
+I
O
+I
Z J
LL00
yz
W
Qo
Lr)UW
\
Z
Q
O
U)
oLL
z
�
U W
+�
i
W
2
\
z
w

SPRING BOX AND PIPE
a
o
w
�
=
o
N
°°
780
�L6
n�
N~0
�r`Z
m'�>
>
FEZ
C0EEZ
Approximate
8" Water Main "A"
(No Impact w/ Stream)
Stream Impact:
Approximate 4" Force
Main Crossing
m 770
Stream Impact:
r
ITI
Approximate location
of 8" Gravity Sewer
>
Crossing
O
Stream Impact:
z
Proposed Retaining Wall
Approximate
24" Stormdrain
°°
(No Impact w/ Stream)
o° °
0
760
°°°
\
°-- o
Perforated Pipe to be surrounded
� °
by 12 inch of 2" Stone and Fabric
o°
on top and sides
0 �
4.0' of Pipe before exit through
°
wall to be unperforated (Buried 1')
Perforated Pipe to be
surrounded by 18 inch of 2"
Stone and Fabric on bottom
65.15'
of 15 inch HDPE Pipe @ 11.45%
750
-0+30 0+00 0+85
0
00 ao
m r--
ti
M —
CO
Cp
�
� 1
1—
r- w
LL
w
w
LL w
LL
LL
0+00
STATION
W
H
Q L U
J C/) LU
> = J
Z U
0
J = LU
J U �
W z

Y
N
0Uz0
NW /n z
ooUFw
wUOwQ
Q
U X
LU
0
0
a�
ry
z
O
o
W
U
-
a
0
wU
o
0
rn
�/
xQ
co
0
0
c6
O o >
m
�
>
°
_
in
V
O
d S
O
0
�
u
zzL
O
�
O [C79L:93
J
<
W
Q
��
^
J
� �
981'15L��
9
0
01
coo
coV
0
6L'LSL:93
O
5L 6'69L:9J
<
U
o
0
v
C)
w
0
0
w
ry
ELEVATION
U
0
w
W
~(Dw
�
m�
�z
O
�>
oz�>
=-1
O
z�
=w
ry
U
n
H
z
w

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

W
OC
in r-I
W N
LL
LD d D 00
4�
O
LO
m
=
2
m
Y
_ _
>
Q
L _
Z
4^
. I`
M W � LL
LL
w
O N
Qj
cp
o
qqq�
LO
fV
C
z
LU
LU
d o a
_
z
o
�
~
+ N
r j
O
�1
YenW
a
N
N
Q
Z
LU
Lr)
v
a �
L j
o
Q
z
a
Jo
>
U
z o
Z
W
O
:
a
LJJ
C
C
U
z_ ,
J C
N
cc
G
0
jLn
N
O
Q
ol
Q
_
7
[.
1
W
o
V
a
L
0
LL
Q
M
r
.
w
F- u
a
-
W
N
S
a
�
o
-7
g enw
o
p
Z
W
L
0
W
w
LLIF
LLI
a
v
a
eqv
L
p
LL
—.� -.,�-ter
_
_"I'_'-•�
C
W LA
'�
a
p�
(J

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2016-01916 County: Mecklenburg U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Cornelius
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Bowman Develooment Grouo
Drew Bowman
Address: 13815 Cinnabar Place
Huntersville, NC 28078
Telephone Number: 704-875-9704 ext. 105
E-mail: bowman3l(&2mail.com
Size (acres) 4.25 Nearest Town Huntersville
Nearest Waterway Clarke Creek River Basin Uooer Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040105 Coordinates Latitude: 35.4149
Longitude:-80.8381
Location description: The review area is located on the west side of Huntersville-Concord Road, 0.5 miles northeast of the
intersection of Huntersville-Concord Road and Old Statesville Road. PINS: 01902201 and 01902108. Reference review area
descriution shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request uackage entitled "Figure No.2 Aerial Mad' with a Printed Date of
09/06/2016.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
❑ There appear to be waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated MAP DATE.
Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining
compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource
protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be
affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters including wetlands, at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters
including wetlands, on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
® There are waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters including wetlands, on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2016-01916
® The waters including wetlands, on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 10/26/2016. If you wish
to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon completion. Once verified, this survey will
provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no
change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on SURVEY SIGNED DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David Shaeffer at 704-510-1437 or
david.l. shaeffernu sace. army. mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the approved iurisdictional determination
form dated 12/07/2017.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 02/05/2018.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.
RODEN o,g,lly,.g�.dNya DENNE.NOLDS.KN.AN.KENNE�.1263a5s
.-U.S.me .-D,ou=PKL ou=NSA, 1--N
Corps Regulatory Official: REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 ""
Date of JD: 12/07/2017 Expiration Date of JD: 12/06/2022

SAW-2016-01916
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.anny.mil/cm_apex/Vp=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent:
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Grout)
Leonard Rindner
Address:
10612-D Providence Road, PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone Number:
704-904-2277
E-mail:
len.rindner(&wetlands-et)g.com

SAW-2016-01916
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Bowman Development Grout), Drew
File Number: SAW-2016-01916
Date: 12/07/2017
Bowman
Attached
is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission
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.usace.gM.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Res4ulatoiyPros4ramandPennits.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 11 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 11 of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

SAW-2016-01916
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEA CTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: David Shaeffer
CESAD-PDO
Asheville Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phone: [phone]
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 opportuni 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: David Shaeffer, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

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

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

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

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

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

3. Non-RPWs1 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands C, D, E, F, G, and H directly abuts onsite Perennial RPW Tributaries with no break in jurisdiction.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section I1I.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: Wetland J directly abuts onsite Intermittent RPW Tributary J with no break in jurisdiction.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.23 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers,
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
streams): linear feet, wide.
acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Figure No. 1 Dated 09/09/2016
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Figure No. 3 1:24,000 Cornelius Dated 04/08/2016
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure No. 4 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County Dated
04/08/2016 and Figure No. 5 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County Dated 09/06/2016
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Figure No. 2 Dated 09/06/2016
or ® Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): Figure No. 7 Dated 09/06/2016 and Figure No. 8 Dated 08/23/2016,
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

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

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Evaluation
Charlotte Office:
10512-0 Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
For: Vermillion Village
HUNTERSVILLE
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
By: Lisa R. Gaffney, Biologist
Field investigation October 8, 2021
..: w.wetlands-epg.Cr,
Asheville ❑ffice:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg, I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

Vermillion Village - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
This +/- 29.43 acre site is in a semi -urban setting located just south of 4th Street,
southwest of Glendale Drive, east of N. Church Street, and north of Huntersville-
Concord Road, in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. There is a
disturbed former industrial site on the northern portion and wooded slopes on the
southern portion. The site can be found on the Cornelius USGS Topographic
Quadrangle Map; latitude is 35.4149 ON, longitude is-80.8381 °W. The elevation
is approximately 750-800 ft. (Figures 1-4).
Figure 1:
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Vermillion Village - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/J IFLVGS47FDKRG5TCWPQV5ZI64/resources
was referenced to determine the occurrence of Threatened, Endangered and
Protected species for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, the results of which
are listed below (Table 1). Maps and aerial photographs were assembled, and
the site was investigated on October 8, 2021
Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for
Mecklenburg County
County: Mecklenburg, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Data search on October 8, 2021
Group Name Status
Vascular Plants Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus Endangered
sch weinitzii )
Vascular Plants Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea Endangered
laevi ata
Vascular Plants Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii) Endangered
Vertebrate Northern Long -Eared Bat (MVotis
Threatened
septentrionalis)
Invertebrate Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
Endangered
decorata
Vertebrate Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
Protected under the Bald
leucocephalus)
and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
WEPG400969 3
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

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

Vermillion Village - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
RESULTS:
The site is in a semi -urban setting in the town of Huntersville. There is a
disturbed former industrial site on the northern portion and wooded slopes on the
southern portion.
There is a tank tower remaining on the former industrial portion as well as old
building foundations, slabs, stockpiles, and the perimeter is laced with old roads
and trails. Much of the area is overgrown with a scrub/shrub community
dominated by young pines and hardwood saplings including Shortleaf Pine
(Pinus echinata), Virginia Pine (P. virginiana), Winged Elm (Ulmus alata),
Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus),
Dog -fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia),
Goldenrod (So/idago sp.), and Sericea Lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata).
Tree species present on the slope include Willow Oak (Quercus phellos), White
Oak (Quercus alba), Post Oak (Q. stellata), Mockernut Hickory (Carya
tomentosa), Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra), Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
Sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), American Elm (Ulmus americana), Red
Maple (Acer rubrum), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Cottonwood
(Populus deltoides), River Birch (Betula nigra), Box -elder Maple (Acer negundo),
and Black Walnut (Juglans nigra). Shrubs present are Chinese Privet (Ligustrum
sinense), Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), Giant Cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), and Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata). Vines include Kudzu (Pueraria
lobata), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Catbrier (Smilax sp.),
Trumpet Creeper (Campsis radicans), and Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
The herbaceous layer is dominated by Japanese Stilt Grass (Microstegium
vimineum) and includes Panic Grass (Panicum sp.), Christmas Fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea), and River Oats
(Chasmanthium latifolium).
The transitional areas and roadside habitat along 4t" Street, N Church Street,
Huntersville Concord Road, and Glendale Road had been recently mowed and in
areas with overhead power lines, herbicide had been applied. Vegetation
observed includes Fescue (Festuca sp.), Broomsedge (Andropogon virginiana),
Wingstem (Verbesina sp.), Goldenrod (So/idago sp.), Sericea Lespedeza
(Lespedeza cuneata), Johnson Grass (Sorghum halepense), Poke Weed
(Phytolacca americana), Nightshade (Solanum sp.), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus),
Tickseed (Bidens spp.), and Pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus).
WEPG400969
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

Vermillion Village - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Threatened & Endangered/Protected Species Results
• All potential habitats for Schweinitz's Sunflower along the roadsides, utility
rights -of -way, transitional areas and woods edges were examined, and the
species was not observed. WEPG concludes Schweinitz's Sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) does not occur on the site.
• All potential habitats for Smooth Coneflower along the roadsides, utility
rights -of -way, transitional areas and woods edges were examined, and the
species was not observed. WEPG concludes Smooth Coneflower
(Echinacea laeyigata) does not occur on the site.
• All potential habitats for Michaux's Sumac along the roadsides, utility
rights -of -way, transitional areas and woods edges were examined, and the
species was not observed. WEPG concludes Michaux's Sumac (Rhus
michauxii) does not occur on the site.
• No habitat exists on the site for Bald Eagles. WEPG concludes Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) does not occur on the site.
• Based on existing documentation, Carolina Heelsplitter populations have
not been identified within this basin. WEPG concludes Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) does not occur on the site.
• Comparing this site location to the USFWS Asheville office's website
(http-//www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project review/NLEB_in_WNC.htm I)
WEPG concludes the site meets the "exempt_" criteria which requires no
further action under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the
Northern Long-eared Bat.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the site investigation and the review of available data, WEPG did not
identify any protected species occurring on the subject property. No further
investigation of the presence of protected species on the site is recommended at
this time.
Respectfully submitted,
04z,el # 1*e�l
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist
October 12, 2021
on
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

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

Vermillion Village - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Figure 2: VICINITY MAP
Hunrersrrl le
p
Mobile Auto
2452
k Church St
herw00d
Qr
715
Ile ARP Church 4
s452
m
x
Y
s
s
American Legion 19
Murto Made Distillery
Mini 9 10
Hubbard's Cupboards 19 $ Fixtures
Sparrows �.P
nn P
t'" st
a
d
v
c
t
%4
flO,,1
Yappy Hour Bakery
Mobile boutique an
9
Harvey's F
mFree Delivery
on t st order
4°4,1 okd Vermillion Or
24" Pamela H. Bowman Park
N _ 199 Main Street Coffee
Coworkinq 11�117 •tip""r
Aurea: VERMILLION VILLAGE Prepared For:IWEPG
+f- 29.43 Mecklenburg Co., NC BOWMAN QEVELOPMENT
FIGURE
2 VICINrrY MAP Drawn By Reviewed By:
08124121 Subject to USACE/NCDEa vmficotron gLK ALL
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

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

Vermillion Village - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Figure 4: NRCS SOIL MAP
PROTECT 60UNDARY
CeB
2
STUDY LIMITS
r
■
N
FNRC—SI Soil Survey Manuscript
cklenburg County 1980
Map Unit Symbol
Asap Unit Name
Acres in Api
Percent of Apt
CeB2
Cecil sandy clay loam. 2 to 8
11.1
37.2%
Percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CeD2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15
11 1
37 4%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CUB
Cecit-Urban land complex. 2 to
7.6
25.4
8 percent slopes
Tools foe Area of Interest
100
29.8
Acres,
t/- 29.43
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Prepared for:
BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
EPG
FIGURE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPT MAP
4
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
08/24/21
Subject to USACEINCOEQ verification
BLK
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

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

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

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

a-J
L
O
Q
oC
u
O
V)
oC
c�
Cultural Resources
Report

R.S. Webb & Associates
Cultural Resource Management Consultants
2800 Holly Springs Parkway, Suite 200 • P.O. Drawer 1319
Holly Springs, Georgia 30142
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
April 6, 2022
Mr. Heath Caldwell
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, North Carolina 28105
Subject: Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review
Vermillion Village Development Tract
Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
R.S. Webb & Associates No. 22-649-173
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
BACKGROUND
During March 2022, R.S. Webb & Associates (RSWA) conducted a cultural resources literature
review for the Vermillion Village development tract in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. The project area covers approximately 29 acres located east of North Church Street and
northwest of Huntersville-Concord Road, between Second and Fourth Street, in northern
Mecklenburg County (Figure 1).
For this study, a cultural resource is defined as a discrete area of human activity that is at least 50
years old. Cultural resources include, but are not limited to, archeological sites, historic structures,
military earthworks, mines/mining features, historic cemeteries, and historic landscape features. The
purpose of the current study was to determine if previously recorded cultural resources are located
within the project area.
METHODOLOGY
Through the State Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) HPOWEB database, information was
reviewed regarding National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties, Mecklenburg County
surveyed -only historic resources, local landmarks, state study -list sites and historic resources
determined by the SHPO to be eligible for the NRHP. The North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) provided RSWA with information via email regarding archeological sites within
1.6 kilometers (km) (1.0 mile) of the project area. This information included site forms, location
maps and partial or full reports. Historic county maps were examined online through North Carolina
Maps, a collaboration of the University of North Carolina, the State Archives of North Carolina, and
the Outer Banks History Center. Historic aerial photography and additional historic maps were
accessed through Historicaerials.com, Earthexplorer.usgs.gov, Legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/, and/or
Alabamamaps.ua.edu.
The following primary sources were found to be useful in searching for historic resources within and
adjacent to the project area:

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

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Vermillion Village Development Tract Page 3
April 6, 2022
(Figure 1). No other DOE or Local Landmark properties are within 350 m (southwest) of the study
tract.
The 2015 architectural survey along Main Street (van den Hurk and Bamann 2016) included
assessment of three previously recorded historic resources adjacent to the current study tract (Figure
1; Nos. MK3556, MK3558 and MK3560) and identified/assessed seven additional resources adjacent
to the project area (Figure 1; Nos. MK3579-MK3581 and MK3588-MK3590). This survey also
included a collective assessment of Anchor Mill in the project area and its "mill village" as a district
of resources both recorded and unrecorded (Resource No. MK1344). The village component, or
worker housing area, is composed of at least 28 buildings near or immediately adjacent to the current
study tract (i.e. along Church Street, Main Street, and 3rd Street, and 4t' Street); the district was
determined ineligible in 2006 and 2015, per the 2016 survey report and SHPO concurrence (van den
Hurk and Bamann 2016).
Recorded Archeological Sites: OSA data indicate that one recorded archeological site, 31MK1074,
is within 1.0 km of the project area (Figure 1). This site was found during the above -noted
Luchsinger et al. survey (2005) and is a disturbed scatter of 19t' and 20" century domestic artifacts
recommended ineligible for the NRHP in 2004.
Revolutionary War Actions: There were at least five reported Revolutionary War military
engagements in Mecklenburg County, the closest of which was the Battle of the Bees (8.7 km
southwest) on October 3, 1780. The brief battle was fought between British Provincial troops and
cavalry, foraging northward during the occupation of Charlotte, and two regiments of Patriot militia
supported by a group of 13 area farmers. The British armies eventually evacuated Charlotte to the
southwest, were reinforced in South Carolina, and then moved west to northeast, skirmishing during
early February 1781 at Cowan's Ford (10 km northwest) and at Tarrant's Tavern in Iredell County
(12 km north) (Lewis 2021).
Civil WarActions/Features: Review of the official military atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al. 1983),
revealed that no significant Civil War military activity occurred in present-day Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina. Union General William T. Sherman, following the capture of Columbia, South
Carolina on February 17, 1865, moved north to the vicinity of Kershaw, Lancaster County, South
Carolina (97 km southeast), whence his armies turned northeast and moved toward Laurel Hill and
Fayetteville, North Carolina, thus bypassing the project region (Davis et al. 1983).
Historic Cemeteries: The USGS topographic maps reviewed show three large cemeteries within
within 360 m of the study tract (Figure 1). The closest cemetery, associated with Huntersville
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, are part of the previously mentioned DOE Resource No.
MK1342 and is approximately 40 m west of the project area.
Historic Railroad. The Atlantic, Tennessee and Ohio Railroad was chartered in 1855 and its rail was
established from Charlotte to Statesville by 1863. The entire length of rail was soon removed and
used to replace rails that were elsewhere destroyed during the war. The rail line was re-established
on the old road bed in 1871 and it remains active through Huntersville today (Robie 2018). Historic
rail corridors may be eligible for the NRHP, but almost all historical significance is contained within
rail corridor rights -of -way.

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Vermillion Village Development Tract Page 4
April 6, 2022
Structures on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs: The earliest available maps of Mecklenburg
County (1910-1912) show a building in the northwestern section of the study tract (probably the
circa 1896 Anchor Mill) and road corridors to the west, north, and south that were all lined by
numerous buildings; no buildings were shown along Glendale Drive (northeast). The current course
of Huntersville-Concord Road (southeast) did not appear on early 20' century maps (its pre -cursor
route was located further south). The current road alignment appeared on highway maps from 193 8
and 1969; these maps do not include individual features within the boundaries of incorporated places
such as Huntersville. The 1970 and 1993 USGS topographic maps shows mill -related buildings, an
elevated water tank and numerous mill village -related buildings closely associated with the mill
complex (Figure 1)
Aerial photographs from 1956 thourgh 1998 show little change in developments located north and
west of the study tract, or along 3rd Street to the southwest. The 1956 aerial shows Steel Street
passing north from 3rd Street into the study tract with eight dwellings along its course (Figure 1). The
number of buildings present along this road was two by 1968; by 1978, no buildings were present.
Development along Glendale Drive adjacent to the northeastern study tract boundarywas very sparse
through 1983 (one building north of the road), but both sides of the road were lined with buildings
by 1998. Along Huntersville-Concord Road to the southeast, development was sparse to the east of
the road prior to 1998, when clearing for modern development was ongoing. No buildings appeared
west of the road, in or near the study tract, on historic aerial photographs.
Google Earth aerial photography from 2004 and 2005 chronicle the complete demolition of Anchor
Mill and the extent of environmental remediation activities within the mill complex/project area.
More recent aerials (2018-2021) indicate significant reforestation of the study tract.
CONCLUSIONS
No NRHP-listed properties are recorded within or near the project area. Likewise, no recorded
determined -eligible properties, designated local landmarks, archeological sites or cemeteries are
located within the study tract. The project area lies within a portion of one state study -list property,
Resource No. MK1344 (Anchor Mill and mill village). This potential historic district was added to
the study list in 2000; however, the mill buildings were razed in 2004 as part of an environmental
remediation project, and in 2015 the associated mill village was determined ineligible for the NRHP,
per the HPOWeb database.
Excluding buildings associated with Anchor Mill (Resource No, MK1344), the closest recorded
NRHP-eligible property to the study tract is Resource No. 1342 (Huntersville Associate Reformed
Presbyterian Church and Cemetery), about 40 m to the west. There are many historic buildings,
some individually recorded, located near the northern, western and southern study tract boundaries,
all of which were determined ineligible for the NRHP, either individually in 2006, or collectively
in 2015.
Historic maps and aerial photographs indicate stability in the occupation and use of the study tract
and its immediate environs during the 20' century and into the early 2000s. A road and a number
of dwellings present in the study tract through 1956 were no longer present by 1978 and, conversely,
residential development east and southeast of the study tract did not occur until after 1983.

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

hSch Stre)t�
A Structure on Historic Maps and Aerial
❑ Recorded Historic Resource
• Recorded Archeological Site
=Previous Cultural Resource Project
--- Road on Historic Maps and Aerials
Map Reference: 7.5-Minute USGS Quadrangle Scale
Cornelius, North Carolina (1993) 0 198 meters
0 650 feet
Figure 1 Project Area, Previous Projects and Cultural Resources Location Map

Engineering I Design I Planning I Construction Management
Attachment 2:
Proposed Culvert and
Impacts Exhibit
www.gpinet.com Engineering I Design I Planning I Construction

.4
oe /
CD
CD
LO

�
II
I
•
wo e
,I
I
�1
SNEUX3
W
In40,0
I
�
H W p ..
z W
w ziu1101
I
o �o
O O N
H H Z
C-
I
2E Q
U
'� UJ
2EH W OU
< X g W =
Q w
W F �
Lj
� � W z N
0 W C, W
>
Z 0 U O
W D Z W
0 U W D
�ao<
o W
\
0 0_
N U)W
O U
z
QLu / U)Q
U F co
U) / 2E 0_
LO
0_ / J H
D
I
O
oa.
r
w
U
,t`.e;etlitl
JM
I.L cV
SS-
L LJ
LU m 5;
2
UwJ
0.
w
e
uwi
Z w
f n F--
V
Oa LU
L�
WJ CO Lu
F— > _ �
i<Z U>
W O D U)
~ i = W
W J 2 Z
>2 F--D
JEo=
U
; z

LU
ELEVATIONN k a` m
W W
>
'•�y N > W
O W J 0 OO yip )tft1E1oN j w LL
a° UW + rnU p
o N :?
a�
gw
U J
m --- D
m U p
Z o
O
H
U
W
co
H
of w
W
> o Q
o
cUnoo
U o�
aQ WOO C7 w u n
w
>�H
a o U W D X� H >
U w co o
w o a
+
0 0 0 0
(O In M
ELEVATION
0
Lo
+
N i2
° w
Wco CD
�
O W Z w CD W
w W � > � � N U
W�
q L U
Q
Z
O o
o
U
W
co z w
~ Ur H
> OW
Q LU
L Z
U o Z J
�z ) w%�W
w
2
�Q XZ C>
N w O
Q ° ~ = W
Uw o WJ2Z
L o D w O 2
U z
>

Engineering I Design I Planning I Construction Management
Attachment 3:
Proposed Culvert Extension
Hydraulic and Hydrologic
Analysis
www.gpinet.com Engineering I Design I Planning I Construction

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
for
Vermillion Village Culvert Extension
Anchor Mill Mixed Use Development
404 North Church Street
Huntersville, NC 28078
August 29, 2023
4L (i, i4p6eCC0. Ls++°ffe4 J r
�a
wr i w! EA. L v
i w
Prepared by:
Commercial Site Solutions, Inc.
Engineering • Site Planning
402 East 1st Avenue
Easley, SC 29640
864-855-5200

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Narrative.................................................................................. 1
FEMA Informations............................................................... 1
Site Soil Information.............................................................. 1
II. Pre -Developed Hydrology.............................................................2
Curve Number and Basin Characteristics ................................... 2
Time of Concentration............................................................ 2
Rainfall Amounts................................................................... 2
Runoff Calculations................................................................2
III. Post -Developed Hydrology........................................................... 3
Curve Number and Basin Characteristics ................................... 3
Time of Concentration............................................................ 3
Rainfall Amounts................................................................... 4
Runoff Calculations................................................................4
IV. Culvert Hydraulic Evaluation.........................................................5
Culvert Observations..............................................................5
Culvert Hydraulics Calculations ................................................ 5
Conclusion........................................................................... 5

APPENDICES
Appendix A......... Maps, Tables and Figures
Site Location Map
USGS Map
Floodway / FEMA Maps
Soils Map and Table
Curve Number Charts
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Stormwater Design Manual Rainfall Table
Appendix B......... Pre -Development Calculations
Pre -Development Drainage Area Map
Offsite Drainage Area Map
Pre -Development Hydrographs Report
Pre -Developed Conditions Culvert Profile
Appendix C......... Post -Development Calculations
Post -Development Drainage Area Map
Offsite Drainage Area Map
Post -Development Hydrographs Report
Post -Developed Conditions Culvert Profile
Appendix D......... Site Photographs

I. NARRATIVE
The following is the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the proposed culvert extension for the
Anchor Mill / Vermillion Village development located at 404 North Church Street in Huntersville, NC.
The subject parcel is currently undeveloped and is located in an area between North Church Street,
Glendale Drive and Huntersville Concord Road encompassing an area of approximately 30.72 acres.
The proposed development will be a mixed -use development. Multifamily residential housing units are
proposed with the possibility of future commercial outparcels. In addition to the buildings, the
proposed development will include public streets, parking areas, utilities to service the proposed
buildings, storm water drainage systems, and other associated appurtenances.
The storm water runoff from the developed areas will be captured and conveyed to underground
extended detention systems where release rates will be controlled via a low flow orifice in each riser
structure for each underground system. The post -developed peak flow rates to the culvert being
analyzed will be drastically reduced utilizing these methods. The culvert being analyzed is an existing
54-inch corrugated metal pipe, located on an existing creek named South Prong Clark Creek and is
located on the southwest corner of the site where the creek flows beneath Huntersville-Concord
Road. The culvert is 100-feet long with a slope of 2.83%. The project proposes extending the culvert
northward into the project site approximately 36-feet to accommodate for road frontage improvements
and the widening of Huntersville-Concord Road. The extended portion is to match the current slope,
pipe material, and pipe diameter of the existing culvert pipe.
FEMA Information
The site currently lies on parcels within The Town of Huntersville and is located on the FEMA F.I.R.M.
map number 3710465100J panel number 4651 J. The site is located in an area defined as Zone X
(Areas outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain).
(See Appendix A)
Site Soil Information
The site soils were obtained from the NRCS Web Soil Survey and are as follows:
Soil Types: Cecil (CuB) — Cecil -Urban land complex, 2% to 8% slopes
Cecil (CeB2) — Cecil sandy clay loam, 2% to 8% slopes
Cecil (CeD2) — Cecil sandy clay loam, 8% to 15% slopes
The above soils are listed as hydrologic Soil Group B.
(See Appendix A)
The following hydrological calculations in this report are based on the SCS Method following the
Town of Huntersville and Mecklenburg County design manuals and requirements.

II. PRE -DEVELOPED HYDROLOGY
Curve Number and Basin Characteristics
The runoff curve number is based on land use (type) and the hydrologic soil group for the drainage
basin (type B). The site is made up of four drainage basins with a combined area of approximately
57.66 acres. Per requirements, drainage area #1 is analyzed as 50% woods and 50% pasture in the
pre -developed condition. Based on this information, and using the TR-55 Manual, the curve number
and basin characteristics for the pre -developed areas are as follows:
Drainage Basin
Area
Land Type
acres
CN
Pre -Development
26.90
13.45 Ac wooded (55) &
59
Area #1
13.45 Ac pasture 61
Pre -Development
3.17
3.17 Ac wooded (58)
58
Area #2
Pre -Development
6.94
See Drainage Map
74
Sea le Street
Pre -Development
20.65
Residential'/ acre lot size
70
Area #4
Time of Concentration
The time of concentration, Tc for the drainage area will be calculated using the TR-55 manual by
analyzing sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow and channel flow and the characteristics of the flow
path:
Area
Tc min
Pre -Developed Area #1
38.30
Pre -Developed Area #2
19.50
Pre -Developed Sea le Street
27.00
Pre -Developed Area #4
30.10
Rainfall Amounts
The following are rainfall precipitation amounts taken from the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water
Design Manual (see Appendix A):
Rainfall Amounts
25-year, 24-hour 5.76 in
Runoff Calculations
Per the SCS Method, the runoff to evaluate the culvert extension will be calculated for the 25-yr storm
event. This storm event will be used to determine release rates from drainage areas in the pre -
developed condition and the proposed storm water management design. The results are as follows:
2

Runoff Amounts (cfs), 25-yr Storm Event
Seagle Street
Area #1
Area #2
Area #4
AP #1 Total
Pre -Development
18.67
30.64
5.51
48.20
98.90
Drainage to AP #1
III. POST -DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY
The runoff for the post -developed conditions will also be calculated using the SCS Method as
previously described in the pre -developed conditions section of this report. Runoff to the analyzed
culvert will be separated into Drainage Areas #1, #2, #4, and offsite from Seagle Street totaling 58.32
acres.
Curve Number and Basin Characteristics
The runoff curve number is based on land use (type) and the hydrologic soil group for the drainage
basin (type B). Drainage Areas #1 A, #1 B, #1 C, #1 D and #1 E will include most of the proposed
development area and are analyzed as commercial and business urban district. Drainage Area #2 is
analyzed as an undisturbed wooded area and Drainage Area #4 is analyzed as residential'/ acre
lots. Based on this information, and using the TR-55 Manual, the curve number and basin
characteristics for the post -developed areas are as follows:
Drainage Basin
Area
Land Type
acres
CN
Post -Development
5
3.98 Ac impervious area (98)
90
Area #1 A
.11
1.13 Ac open sace 61
Post -Development
6
4.85 Ac impervious area (98)
88
Area #1 B
.77
1.92 Ac open sace 61
Post -Development
13
8.59 Ac impervious area (98)
85
Area #1 C
.23
4.64 Ac open sace 61
Post -Development
1
0.27 Ac open space (61)
58
Area #1 D
.37
1.10 Ac wooded area 55
Post -Development
1
1.26 Ac impervious area (98)
95
Area #1 E
.40
0.14 Ac open sace 61
Post -Development
2.85
2.85 Ac wooded area (55)
55
Area #2
Pre -Development
6.94
See Drainage Map
74
Seagle Street
Post -Development
20.65
Residential '/ acre lot size
70
Area #4
Time of Concentration
The time of concentration, Tc for the Post -Development Drainage Area #1 D, #2, and #4 will be
calculated using sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow and channel flow and the characteristics of the
flow path for the area. Drainage areas #1A, #1 B, #1 C and #1 E will be assigned a time of
concentration of 6 minutes due to the smaller size of the drainage area and the minimal length of the
flow path:
3

Area
Tc min
Post -Developed
Area #1 A
6.0
Post -Developed
Area #1 B
6.0
Post -Developed
Area #1 C
6.0
Post -Developed
Area #1 D
13.6
Post -Developed
Area #1 E
6.0
Post -Developed
Area #2
19.5
Post -Developed
Area #4
31.1
Pre -Developed Sea le Street
27.0
Rainfall Amounts
The following are rainfall precipitation amounts taken from the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water
Design Manual (see Appendix A):
Rainfall Amounts
25-year, 24-hour 5.76 in
Runoff Calculations
Per the SCS Method, the runoff to evaluate the culvert extension will be calculated for the 25-yr storm
event. This storm event will be used to determine release rates from drainage areas in the post -
developed condition. The results are as follows:
Runoff Amounts (cfs)
25-yr Storm (cfs)
Post -Development Drainage Area #1A
0.85
Post -Development Drainage Area #1 B
1.08
Post -Development Drainage Area #1 C
1.86
Post -Development Drainage Area #1 D
2.38
Post -Development Drainage Area #1 E
9.79
Post -Development Area #2
4.57
Post -Development Area #4
48.20
Post -Development Seagle Street
18.67
Post -Development Drainage to AP #1
77.82
12

IV. CULVERT HYDRAULIC EVALUATION
Culvert Observations
The culvert observed is a 54-inch corrugated metal pipe which is projecting out from the ground
surface on the upstream side. Based on site survey information, the slope of the pipe is 2.8%, sloping
away from the project site and the pipe has headwall end treatment on the downstream side. The
culvert appears to be in good condition with no visible signs of erosion or scouring around the pipe.
High watermarks observed on the pipe appear to indicate that headwater depth remains less than the
pipe diameter, thus indicating an unsubmerged condition during heavy storm events. The culvert
appears to have a small amount of base flow running through the bottom with some sediment
deposits within the internal corrugations. (See Appendix D for site photographs)
Culvert Hydraulics Calculations
Mannings Equation will be utilized to determine the maximum allowable flow rate of the 54-inch
corrugated metal pipe. Calculations are as follows:
C.
t.
Where:
A = 15.9sf
R = 1.125ft
S = 0.0283
Therefore:
Maximum Allowable Q = 179.62cfs
Conclusion
Based on hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, we have come to the following conclusions:
• The culvert maximum flow capacity is 179.62cfs.
• The 25-yr storm event in the existing conditions produce a peak flow of 98.90cfs.
• The 25-yr storm event in the post -developed conditions produce a peak flow of 77.82cfs.
• With the use of Stormwater management devices onsite, post -developed peak flow rates will
be 21.08cfs less than pre -developed peak flow rates. See table below.
Peak Flow Rates to Culvert (cfs)
Pre -Developed 25-year, 24-hour
98.90
Post -Developed 25-year, 24-hour
77.82
Therefore, the culvert extension will have the capacity required to safely convey stormwater
runoff from the site and other contributing areas beneath Huntersville-Concord Road.
5

Appendix A
Maps, Tables and Figures
Site Location Map
USGS Map
Floodway / FEMA Maps
Soils Map and Table
Curve Number Charts
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Stormwater Design Manual Rainfall Table
0

APPENDIX A
Site Location Diagram
USGS Map
Soils Map and Table
FEMA F.I.R.M. Map
Rainfall Table
Curve Numbers

9/9/2016
Google Maps
Go gle Maps
Ramah Church
Rd
Si5
G7
CL
a
m
w
Oua11G5p555nllonra�park dr
S
�
a
2
ngd
Sherwand pr
,:.;
SITE
0
`rr�
y s
n Dr
14,
y,Gs
, 6rPga °)Ip
pe °ru
¢`ya
r•
2nd $t
yr
aid Verrry li,, ❑r
�
7
d
x
Gilead Rd
H u n t e r s v i l e
t
�
Google
F45
va nihrnnk SS
Map data 9)2016 Google 500 ft
https:/Avww.google.com/maps/@35.4160366,-80.8376616,15.94z 1 /1

1 - - � • .• r • • ' � � � � � R L � air
` 1 • , 1 1 ■ 1
I 1
•� AL
r 1• { LJpr-
-
� le ti 1
96
16
i 1 � 1 •ti 1 �' -�ti
�" + � ti I • r �5k I
yk a 1 -��� � 1 4 •� 1 �
■ ' ti
• _ ' a ' -
rr i _ar 1.0 _� 1 7�
f ■ 'z
Z J lb yT I 1
• i UJ r - — ~ ~• _ !
1
Rr v •} - 1
%
~��•� r.
` Ifir rM6y r
ern - - — ?■.� + ' i 1� _ • -
■LE, •� • r 1
f _rr, * �� 0 RIPa - ■ ai ■� ! a 11 7 ■F i •5` !
■T
IL
Lr ,
ar Or,
RL
1J'�' - ■ ~ �. yr ` 90 *} T
! .f
}
tiIF
■
ZL i—!• �T1 i . 1 �• - . . r
1 1 1 •ti
-j 9 r %r'
r 5 ' • rr * 4
-, '' • •%i
1• * i
r 5 '
1
ti• -� _ �� ' _ _ } '*a-" + �ti -% i
,• � �+� r 1 L 1� _ -Fir ti . r' •
1�'
1 1
1 1 1 J i J 1 ■'�ti
+ %
1p

3: Soil Map —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
(Anchor Mill Soil Map)
514480 514560 514640 514720 514800 514880 514960
35° 25' 9" N - I a� r W. I f 9 I I - 35° 259" N
�I It I0`
in k S ,�,�t' I' _ ram• '►e' v'
lyyl +
PP
v �
�' ed t �)►, dP� � r t. � �
�r
v s. rE 14 a v
`r I�
M �
M
L
1
1 +
'O`
O Awl .! o
m �. � F SY•� 1 -1 � h. .4 '. i� M
A.
M <P f
S
� A
m dPl M
M .- L V ♦ �1CS- - M
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
35° 24' 46" N 35° 24' 46" N
514480 514560 514640 514720 514800 514880 514960
LD
Map Scale: 1:3,380 i printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. o
Meters $
$ N 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 150 300 600 900
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/29/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3

514480
35o 259" N r "_ I .
514560
CUB
Hydrologic Soil Group —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
(Anchor Mill HSG Soil Map)
514640
1
514720 514800
Y ti
� i 4
f r low
514880 514960
I
35o 259" N
o
�3
O
M
1 � 3
� ♦ T
rA Y
V ♦ M
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.;
35o 24' 46" N NA
M I " 35o 24' 46" N
514480 514560 514640 514720 514800 514880 514960
LD
Map Scale: 1:3,380 i printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. o
Meters $
$ N 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 150 300 600 900
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/29/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Pagel of 4

Hydrologic Soil Group —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Anchor Mill HSG Soil Map
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (NC119)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
CeB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2
B
11.0
37.8%
to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
CeD2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 8
B
11.3
38.7%
to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
CuB
Cecil -Urban land
B
6.9
23.5%
complex, 2 to 8
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
29.2
100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long -duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained orwell drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
usoA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/29/2016
4� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4

d8
E
ltl ry w p� N
U
wv $ FCL
33
F7-$3
Cfl W W =)LU �s3Zo
v rFJ-� a
r za QC7 n j
I p y ae `L
H a a z gra a d
Q �/ F, EEE
Z °�' w ' € ` Q
LU
o �d� H
w a w
LL
J z
u� °
Q Q � U � N �� E
[' = cfl o � a x
G m�� H= -6 ELl
��
a C)o z z E LQ ,Sr F
z OM
w2"
Wi8
Omp
CW ��
ova �Nk p
t
� v
U. n
oC6 ��tl�lasE-1
�� �o � eo ❑ O�o� �
op
w
LL
GLENDALE �'R ° d �C sd� 0
W ,a
p a ~ Lo
0 N [�n fit:
.r b ❑ n
o 6
a oC12Q
_ a
O O oa STEEL ST N p u I o O d F-
C3
O C L- O n� $ Gy°� z efsrr o as =p ❑..
M
C C g ~ _ ° uvi
OU 1--------
F
Q o o Q p°
YE � 7o L) � j7o i
Fn
O C
70 L
Cn CU Cc L_.�J Ll p C�
CV
cu
O ❑ a Q — W�LL_AV -
ww-1
i +L. C C C cad �d ❑
X O CO O CO Q 4
O C 0 0 0
N O;r- U { a

CHAPTER HYDROLOGY
2.3 DESIGN FREQUENCY
2.3.1 Design Frequencies
Description
Storm system pipes
Ditch systems
Culverts/Cross-drain (subdivision streets)
Culverts/Cross-drain (thoroughfare roads)
Culverts (over regulated floodways)
Culverts/Cross-drain (primary access streets)
Usable and functionable part of structure or building
(as defined in the Subdivision Ordinance)
Design Storm
10 year
10 year
25 year
50 year
100 year
No overtopping in 100 year
100 year + 1 foot
2.3.2 Rainfall Intensity
The following rainfall intensities (Table 2-2) shall be used for all hydrologic analysis.
Table 2-2
Rainfall Intensities - Charlotte,
North Carolina
Time
Recurrence interval (years)
Hours Minutes
2
5
10
25
50
100
0
5
5.03
6.30
7.03
8.21
9.00
9.92
6
4.78
6.02
6.75
7.89
8.65
9.53
7
4.55
5.76
6.49
7.59
8.32
9.17
8
4.34
5.53
6.26
7.31
8.03
8.84
9
4.16
5.32
6.04
7.06
7.75
8.54
10
3.99
5.12
5.84
6.83
7.50
8.26
15
3.33
4.35
5.03
5.87
6.46
7.11
16
3.23
4.22
4.89
5.72
6.29
6.92
17
3.13
4.10
4.77
5.57
6.13
6.74
18
3.04
3.99
4.65
5.43
5.97
6.57
19
2.96
3.89
4.53
5.30
5.83
6.41
20
2.88
3.79
4.43
5.17
5.69
6.26
21
2.80
3.70
4.32
5.05
5.56
6.12
22
2.73
3.61
4.23
4.94
5.44
5.98
23
2.66
3.53
4.14
4.83
5.32
5.85
24
2.60
3.45
4.05
4.73
5.21
5.73
25
2.54
3.37
3.96
4.63
5.10
5.61
26
2.48
3.30
3.88
4.54
5.00
5.50
27
2.43
3.23
3.81
4.45
4.90
5.39
28
2.38
3.17
3.73
4.36
4.81
5.29
29
2.33
3.11
3.66
4.28
4.72
5.19
30
2.28
3.05
3.60
4.20
4.64
5.09
40
1.90
2.57
3.05
3.56
3.93
4.32
50
1.64
2.23
2.66
3.10
3.43
3.76
1
60
1.45
1.98
2.36
2.76
3.05
3.34
2
120
0.88
1.21
1.45
1.70
1.89
2.06
3
180
0.65
0.90
1.07
1.25
1.40
1.52
6
360
0.38
0.53
0.62
0.73
0.82
0.89
12
720
0.22
0.31
0.36
0.42
0.47
0.51
24
1440
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.24
0.27
0.29
P24 (inches - in.)
3.12
4.32
4.80
5.76
6.48
6.96
2-5

Chapter 2 Estimating Runoff Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Table 2-2a Runoff curve numbers for urban areas _v
Cover description
Cover type and hydrologic condition
Fully developed urban areas (vegetation established)
Curve numbers for
-----hydrologic soil group
Average percent
impervious area 2/ A B C D
Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.) 3/:
Poor condition (grass cover < 500/6)..........................................
Fair condition (grass cover 50% to 750/6)..................................
Good condition (grass cover > 750/6).........................................
Impervious areas:
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc.
(excluding right-of-way).............................................................
Streets and roads:
Paved; curbs and storm sewers (excluding
right-of-way)................................................................................
Paved; open ditches (including right-of-way) ..........................
Gravel (including right -of -way) .................................................
Dirt (including right -of -way) ......................................................
Western desert urban areas:
Natural desert landscaping (pervious areas only) / .....................
Artificial desert landscaping (impervious weed barrier,
desert shrub with 1- to 2-inch sand or gravel mulch
and basin borders)......................................................................
Urban districts:
Commercial and business.................................................................
Industrial.............................................................................................
Residential districts by average lot size:
1/8 acre or less (town houses)..........................................................
1/4 acre................................................................................................
1/3 acre................................................................................................
1/2 acre................................................................................................
1 acre...................................................................................................
2 acres..................................................................................................
Developing urban areas
Newly graded areas
(pervious areas only, no vegetation) 5i
Idle lands (CN's are determined using cover types
similar to those in table 2-2c).
68
79
86
89
49
69
79
84
39
61
74
80
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
83
89
92
93
76
85
89
91
72
82
87
89
63
77
85
88
96
96
96
96
85
89
92
94
95
72
81
88
91
93
65
77
85
90
92
38
61
75
83
87
30
57
72
81
86
25
54
70
80
85
20
51
68
79
84
12
46
65
77
82
77 86 91 94
1 Average runoff condition, and Ia = 0.2S.
2 The average percent impervious area shown was used to develop the composite CN's. Other assumptions are as follows: impervious areas are
directly connected to the drainage system, impervious areas have a CN of 98, and pervious areas are considered equivalent to open space in
good hydrologic condition. CN's for other combinations of conditions may be computed using figure 2-3 or 2-4.
3 CN's shown are equivalent to those of pasture. Composite CN's may be computed for other combinations of open space
cover type.
4 Composite CN's for natural desert landscaping should be computed using figures 2-3 or 2-4 based on the impervious area percentage
(CN = 98) and the pervious area CN. The pervious area CN's are assumed equivalent to desert shrub in poor hydrologic condition.
5 Composite CN's to use for the design of temporary measures during grading and construction should be computed using figure 2-3 or 24
based on the degree of development (impervious area percentage) and the CN's for the newly graded pervious areas.
(210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) 2-5

Chapter 2 Estimating Runoff Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Table 2-2c Runoff curve numbers for other agricultural lands _v
Curve numbers for
------------------------------ Cover description ----------------------
-------
hydrologic
soil group -------
Hydrologic
Cover type
condition
A
B
C
D
Pasture, grassland, or range —continuous
Poor
68
79
86
89
forage for grazing. 2/
Fair
49
69
79
84
Good
39
61
74
80
Meadow —continuous grass, protected from
—
30
58
71
78
grazing and generally mowed for hay.
Brush —brush -weed -grass mixture with brush
Poor
48
67
77
83
the major element. 31
Fair
35
56
70
77
Good
30 V
48
65
73
Woods —grass combination (orchard
Poor
57
73
82
86
or tree farm). 5/
Fair
43
65
76
82
Good
32
58
72
79
Woods. sl
Poor
45
66
77
83
Fair
36
60
73
79
Good
30 V
55
70
77
Farmsteads —buildings, lanes, driveways,
—
59
74
82
86
and surrounding lots.
1 Average runoff condition, and Ia = 0.25.
2 Poor. <50%) ground cover or heavily grazed with no mulch.
Fair: 50 to 75% ground cover and not heavily grazed.
Good: > 75% ground cover and lightly or only occasionally grazed.
3 Poor. <50%ground cover.
Fair: 50 to 75% ground cover.
Good: >759/oground cover.
4 Actual curve number is less than 30; use CN = 30 for runoff computations.
5 CN's shown were computed for areas with 50%woods and 50%grass (pasture) cover. Other combinations of conditions may be computed
from the CN's for woods and pasture.
6 Poor: Forest litter, small trees, and brush are destroyed by heavy grazing or regular burning.
Fair: Woods are grazed but not burned, and some forest litter covers the soil.
Good: Woods are protected from grazing, and litter and brush adequately cover the soil.
(210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) 2-7

Appendix B
Pre -Development Calculations
Pre -Development Drainage Area Map
Offsite Drainage Area Map
Pre -Development Hydrographs Report
Pre -Developed Conditions Culvert Profile

K�F
\
Hff
%
a

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 1
Offsite Runoff to AP#1
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 18.67 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 729 min
Time interval
= 3 min
Hyd. volume
= 75,176 cuft
Drainage area
= 6.940 ac
Curve number
= 74
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 27.00 min
Total precip.
= 5.76 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
• II
3.00
Offsite Runoff to AP#1
Hyd. No. 1 -- 25 Year
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
m
3.00
0.00 ' — ' ' ' ' " ' 0.00
0 180 360 540 720 900 1080 1260 1440 1620
— Hyd No. 1 Time (min)

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 4
Pre -Development Area #1
Hydrograph type =
SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 30.64 cfs
Storm frequency =
25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.30 hrs
Time interval =
3 min
Hyd. volume
= 162,179 cuft
Drainage area =
26.900 ac
Curve number
= 59*
Basin Slope =
0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method =
TR55
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 35.70 min
Total precip. =
5.76 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration =
24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(13.140 x 55) + (13.140 x 61) + (0.620 x 98)] / 26.900
Q (cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Time (hrs)

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 5
Pre -Development Area #2
Hydrograph type =
SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 5.513 cfs
Storm frequency =
25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.10 hrs
Time interval =
3 min
Hyd. volume
= 19,096 cuft
Drainage area =
3.170 ac
Curve number
= 58*
Basin Slope =
0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method =
TR55
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 19.50 min
Total precip. =
5.76 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration =
24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(2.920 x 55) + (0.250 x 98)] / 3.170
Q (cfs)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 3
— Hyd No. 5
Pre -Development Area #2
Hyd. No. 5 -- 25 Year
6 9 12 15 18 21
Q (cfs)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
24 27
Time (hrs)

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 2
Drainage Area #4 - Offsite
Hydrograph type =
SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 48.20 cfs
Storm frequency =
25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.20 hrs
Time interval =
3 min
Hyd. volume
= 196,100 cuft
Drainage area =
20.650 ac
Curve number
= 70
Basin Slope =
0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method =
TR55
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 30.10 min
Total precip. =
5.76 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration =
24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 3
— Hyd No. 2
Drainage Area #4 - Offsite
Hyd. No. 2 -- 25 Year
6 9 12 15 18 21
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
24 27
Time (hrs)

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021 Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 7
Pre -Developed Runoff to AP#1
Hydrograph type = Combine IPeak discharge = 98.90 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 12.20 hrs
Time interval = 3 min Hyd. volume = 452,551 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 1, 2, 4, 5 Contrib. drain. area = 57.660 ac
Pre -Developed Runoff to AP#1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 7 -- 25 Year Q (cfs)
100.00 100.00
80.00 80.00
60.00 60.00
40.00 40.00
20.00 20.00
0.00 0.00
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
— Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 1 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 5

Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.
Analysis Point #1 - (54inch CMP) - Existing
Monday, Aug 28 2023
Invert Elev Dn (ft)
= 732.88
Calculations
Pipe Length (ft)
= 100.00
Qmin cfs
= 21.76
Slope (%)
= 2.83
Qmax cfs
= 98.90
Invert Elev Up (ft)
= 735.71
Tailwater Elev (ft)
= (dc+D)/2
Rise (in)
= 54.0
Shape
= Circular
Highlighted
Span (in)
= 54.0
Qtotal (cfs)
= 21.76
No. Barrels
= 1
Qpipe (cfs)
= 21.76
n-Value
= 0.024
Qovertop (cfs)
= 0.00
Culvert Type
= Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
= 2.00
Culvert Entrance
= Projecting
Veloc Up (ft/s)
= 5.55
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
= 0.034, 1.5, 0.0553, 0.54, 0.9
HGL Dn (ft)
= 735.79
HGL Up (ft)
= 737.04
Embankment
Hw Elev (ft)
= 737.53
Top Elevation (ft)
= 756.00
Hw/D (ft)
= 0.40
Top Width (ft)
= 25.00
Flow Regime
= Inlet Control
Crest Width (ft)
= 0.00
Elcv ift!
757. ,
752.
747.OD
742.OD
737.00
732.00
727.00
0
Analysis Point #1 - (54inch CMP) - Existing
10 20 30 40 s0 8D 70 90 90 10D 110 120
CircularCulvert HGL Embank
Hw Depth (ft)
21.29
16.29
11.29
6.29
1.29
-3.71
-9.71
130 140
Reach (ft)

Appendix C
Post -Development Calculations
Post -Development Drainage Area Map
Offsite Drainage Area Map
Post -Development Hydrographs Report
Post -Developed Conditions Culvert Profile

0 z
10
> <
0
L Z < <
Hz
16
m
MEN
000
Ors
0 <
01
I<D
wopp
❑
z 6
> <
<
o
JO
O

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 1
Offsite Runoff to AP#1
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 18.67 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.15 hrs
Time interval
= 3 min
Hyd. volume
= 75,176 cuft
Drainage area
= 6.940 ac
Curve number
= 74
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 27.00 min
Total precip.
= 5.76 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0 00
0 3
— Hyd No. 1
Offsite Runoff to AP#1
Hyd. No. 1 -- 25 Year
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0 00
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Time (hrs)

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 10
UG Pond 1A Outflow
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.850 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 14.85 hrs
Time interval
= 3 min
Hyd. volume
= 75,749 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 9 - Post -Development Area #1Max. Elevation
= 756.65 ft
Reservoir name
= Underground Detention A
Max. Storage
= 56,391 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
UG Pond 1A Outflow
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 10 -- 25 Year Q (cfs)
35.00 35.00
30.00 30.00
25.00 25.00
20.00 20.00
15.00 15.00
10.00 10.00
5.00 5.00
0.00 0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Time (hrs)
— Hyd No. 10 Hyd No. 9 0 Total storage used = 56,391 cult

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 13
UG Pond 1 B Outflow
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 1.080 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 14.95 hrs
Time interval
= 3 min
Hyd. volume
= 92,290 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 12 - Post -Developed Area #1
BMax. Elevation
= 769.68 ft
Reservoir name
= Underground Detention B
Max. Storage
= 71,424 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
UG Pond 1 B Outflow
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 13 -- 25 Year Q (cfs)
50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Time (hrs)
— Hyd No. 13 Hyd No. 12 0 Total storage used = 71,424 cult

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 16
UG Pond 1 C Outflow
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 1.861 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 15.40 hrs
Time interval
= 3 min
Hyd. volume
= 171,073 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 15 - Post -Development Area
#LQx. Elevation
= 768.77 ft
Reservoir name
= Underground Detention C
Max. Storage
= 127,976 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
UG Pond 1 C Outflow
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 16 -- 25 Year Q (cfs)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0 00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0 00
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
Time (hrs)
— Hyd No. 16 Hyd No. 15 0 Total storage used = 127,976 cult

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 21
Post -Development Area #1 D
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 2.383 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.10 hrs
Time interval
= 3 min
Hyd. volume
= 8,253 cuft
Drainage area
= 1.370 ac
Curve number
= 58*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 19.50 min
Total precip.
= 5.76 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Corn posite (Area/CN) = [(0.580 x 98) + (0.200 x 61)] / 1.370
Q (cfs)
3.00
2.00
1.00
Post -Development Area #1 D
Hyd. No. 21 -- 25 Year
0.00 1 --.J- i i / I I I I
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Hyd No. 21
Q (cfs)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
24 27
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 23
Post -Developed Area #1 E
Hydrograph type =
SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 9.792 cfs
Storm frequency =
25 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.95 hrs
Time interval =
3 min
Hyd. volume
= 24,647 cuft
Drainage area =
1.400 ac
Curve number
= 95
Basin Slope =
0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method =
User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 6.00 min
Total precip. =
5.76 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration =
24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
10.00
4.00
3.0
Hyd No. 23
Post -Developed Area #1 E
Hyd. No. 23 -- 25 Year
6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0
Q (cfs)
10.00
oe
4.00
2.00
__" 0.00
21.0
Time (hrs)

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 27
Post -Developed Area #2
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 4.579 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.10 hrs
Time interval
= 3 min
Hyd. volume
= 16,553 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.200 ac
Curve number
= 55
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= TR55
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 19.50 min
Total precip.
= 5.76 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 ' 1 1 ---"
0 3 6
— Hyd No. 27
Post -Developed Area #2
Hyd. No. 27 -- 25 Year
9 12 15 18 21
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
24 27
Time (hrs)

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021
Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 2
Drainage Area #4 - Offsite
Hydrograph type =
SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 48.20 cfs
Storm frequency =
25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.20 hrs
Time interval =
3 min
Hyd. volume
= 196,100 cuft
Drainage area =
20.650 ac
Curve number
= 70
Basin Slope =
0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method =
TR55
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 30.10 min
Total precip. =
5.76 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration =
24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 3
— Hyd No. 2
Drainage Area #4 - Offsite
Hyd. No. 2 -- 25 Year
6 9 12 15 18 21
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
24 27
Time (hrs)

1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, Inc. v2021 Monday, 08 / 28 / 2023
Hyd. No. 30
Post -Developed Runoff to AP#1
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 77.82 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 12.15 hrs
Time interval = 3 min Hyd. volume = 659,841 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 1, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27 Contrib. drain. area = 33.560 ac
Post -Developed Runoff to AP#1

Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.
Analysis Point #1 - (54inch CMP) - Extension
Invert Elev Dn (ft)
= 732.88
Pipe Length (ft)
= 136.00
Slope (%)
= 2.83
Invert Elev Up (ft)
= 736.73
Rise (in)
= 54.0
Shape
= Circular
Span (in)
= 54.0
No. Barrels
= 1
n-Value
= 0.024
Culvert Type
= Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe
Culvert Entrance
= Projecting
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
= 0.034, 1.5, 0.0553, 0.54, 0.9
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 756.00
Top Width (ft) = 30.00
Crest Width (ft) = 0.00
Ele; ift!
752.
747.00
742.00
737.00
732.00
727.00
Friday, Sep 15 2023
Calculations
Qmin cfs = 20.30
Qmax cfs = 77.82
Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs)
Qpipe (cfs)
Qovertop (cfs)
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
Veloc Up (ft/s)
HGL Dn (ft)
HGL Up (ft)
Hw Elev (ft)
Hw/D (ft)
Flow Regime
Analysis Point #1 - (54inch CMP) - Extension
= 77.30
= 77.30
= 0.00
= 5.77
= 8.24
= 736.41
= 739.30
= 740.82
= 0.91
= Inlet Control
Hw Depth (ft)
20.27
15.27
10.27
5.27
0.27
-4.'3
-9.73
0 10 20 30 40 .50 60 83 90 100 11� 12'� 130 140 150 160 170 180
CircularCulvert HGL Embank
Reach (ft)

Appendix D
Site Photographs

Descrip5on: Projec5ng 54-inch culvert on upstream side.
Descrip5on: Projec5ng 54-inch culvert on upstream side.
Base flow and sediment deposits observed.
No visible evidence of erosion or scouring.

`lakr
-`
Description: Interior of 54-inch culvert on upstream side.
Base flow and sediment deposits observed.
Description: Interior of 54-inch culvert looking downstream.
Base flow and sediment deposits observed.

Engineering I Design I Planning I Construction Management
Attachment 4:
Agent Authorization Forms
www.gpinet.com Engineering I Design I Planning I Construction

GPIVermillion Village - Culvert Extension Many Talents, One Firm
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on our behalf in matters related to aquatic resource
(i.e. stream/wetlands) identification/mapping and regulatory permitting. The Representative of the Owner,
Embrey Partners LLC, Joel Albea, does hereby authorize: Jonathan Hinkle, PE of Greenman -Pedersen Inc.,
to act on its behalf and take all actions necessary for processing, issuance, and acceptance of this permit
or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached. This authorization is for the project
entitled Vermillion Village — Culvert Extension.
Project Site Information:
Project/Site Name:
Property Address:
Parcel Identification Number (PIN):
Owner Contact Information:
Representative:
Title:
Organization:
Address:
Phone Number:
Email:
Greenman -Pederson, Inc.
Contact:
Address:
Phone Number:
Email:
s:z__— __� 4-- -
Represen a ' f
of Embrey Partners, LLC
Vermillion Village — Culvert Extension
12010 Huntersville-Concord Road,
Huntersville NC 28078
01905212.01902201.01905281
Joel Albea
Vice President
Embrey Partners, LLC (Property Buyer/Developer
7600 Broadway, Suite 300
San Antonio, TX 7820
919.571.0647
JalbeaOEmbrevDC.com
Jonathan Hinkle, PE
1308 HWY 258 N Kinston NC 28504
910.250.5290
[e-mail]
11 /2/2023
Date
GPI
_mn�.r r.a�.rs.aoa

GPIVermillion Village - Culvert Extension Many Talents, One Firm
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on our behalf in matters related to aquatic resource
(i.e. stream/wetlands) identification/mapping and regulatory permitting. The Representative of the Owner,
Vermillion Anchor Mill Village LLC _ , does hereby authorize:
Jonathan Hinkle, PE of Greenman -Pedersen Inc., to act on its behalf and take all actions necessary for
processing, issuance, and acceptance of this permit or certification and any and all standard and special
conditions attached. This authorization is for the project entitled Vermillion Village — Culvert Extension,
Project Site Information:
Project/Site Name: Vermillion Village — Culvert Extension
Property Address: 406 North Church Street,
Huntersville NC 28078
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 01902201
Owner Contact Information:
Representative: j> E 11600ImA1�
Title: %tif/ri►A 444*
Organization: Vermillion Anchor Mill Village LLC
Address: 13815 Cinnabar Place
Huntersville NC, 28087
Phone Number: _ ' 7
Email: NA>C B®rJm*$45lp 4omk • com
Greenman -Pederson, Inc.
Contact: Jonathan Hinkle, PE
Address: 1308 HWY 258 N Kinston NC 28504
Phone Number: 910.250.5290
Email: [e-mail]
a
epresentative on Behalf Date
of Vermillion Anchor Mill Village LLC
GPI