20150996 Ver 1_401 Application_20150915

�) cws
Carolina Wetland Services
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 - Phone PA P
704 -527 -1133 - Fax
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR —NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury St
9th Floor, Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
Date:
CWS Project #
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via
9/21/2015
2015 -3598
20150996
R. R@W1P.1FR 1 0
SEP 2 5 2015
D E N R - WATER RESOURCES
401 & BUFFER PERMITTING
the following items:
® Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
•�
9/21/2015 5 1 Application for WQC 3890
2 9/21/2015 1 Application Fee ($240)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment ❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Karen, Please find attached five copies of the Pre - Construction Notification and application for
WOC 3890 for the Star City Tract proiect. A check for the application fee of $240 is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank you,
zzrl L.'A'��
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New AcUp"IspAID
SAW — 201 BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
20 56996
Prepare file folder F1 Assign Action ID Number in ORM FI
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Star City Tract
2. Work Type: Private Fv_71 Institutional F-1 Government F1 Commercial 11
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 63e]:
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 39 acres of property into a single -and
multi - family residential subdivision.
4. Property Owner/ Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Crescent Communities; POC: Mr. Michael Tubridy
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 —or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS; POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 65b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and /or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
Located south of Tilley Morris Road and east of Providence Road in Charlotte, North Carolina
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 61a]: 231 - 131 -05
Lq9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte 5
r�r_D 2 2015
"'IT
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Six Mlle Creek �= BUFFER OURCES
J
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Santee (HUC 03050101)
Authorization: Section 10 F-1 Section 404 7 Section 10 & 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 29
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

`II ))CWS
Carolina Welland Services
September 21, 2015
Mr. William Elliott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866 - 527 -1177 (office)
704 - 527 -1133 (fax)
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. -29
and Water Quality Certification No. 3890
Star City Tract
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2015 -3598
Dear Mr. Elliott and Ms. Higgins:
The Star City Tract site is approximately 39.4 acres in extent and is located south of Tilley Morris Road and
east of Providence Road in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1. attached). The purpose of this project is to
develop a residential subdivision in a developing area of Charlotte. Crescent Communities has contracted
Carolina Wetland Services to provided Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. An executed
Agent Authorization Form is attached.
Applicant Name: Crescent Communities; POC: Mr. Michael Tubridy
Mailing Address: 227 West Trade St., Suite 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: (980) 321 -6247
Street Address of Project: south of Tilley Morris Road and east of Providence Road in Charlotte,
North Carolina
Waterway: UT to Six Mile Creek
Basin: Santee (HUC 03050101)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Tax Parcel ID numbers: 231 - 131 -05 (partial parcel)
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.052847, - 80.763017
USGS Quadrangle Name: Weddington, NC, dated 1988
Site Conditions
The site consists of an undeveloped forested parcel. Typical on -site vegetation includes tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciva), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), and autumn
olive (Elaeagnus umbellata).
NORTH CAROLINA . SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

Star City Tract September 21, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3598
According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County' (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on -site soils consist of
Davidson sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (DaB), Davidson sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
(DaD), Davidson sandy clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (DaE), Iredell fine sandy loam, 1 to 8 percent
slopes (IrB), Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (MeB), Monacan soils (MO), and Pacolet
sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (PaE). The Davidson, Mecklenburg, and Pacolet soils are well drained.
Iredell soils (IrB) are moderately well drained, and Monacan soils are somewhat poorly drained. Monacan
soils are listed in the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County as having hydric
inclusions. Iredell fine sandy loam, l to 8 percent slopes (IrB) and Monacan Soils are listed as a hydric soil
(hydric criteria 2133, 4) on the National Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County.'
Jurisdictional Delineation
On August 29, 2013, CWS scientists Thomas Blackwell, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) and Kelly
Thames, Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, within the project area (Figure 5, attached). Jurisdictional areas were delineated (flagged in the
field) using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This
method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual4, the 2007 USACE
Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebooks, with further technical guidance from the
Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Regional Supplement6, dated April 2012. A Wetland Determination Data
Form representative of on -site wetland areas is attached as DPI. A Wetland Determination Data Form
representative of on -site non jurisdictional upland areas is attached as DP2. The locations of these data
points are identified as DPI and DP2 on Figure 5 (attached).
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D- shaped dip net,
taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel changes
classification) within each on -site stream channel.
On April 8, 2015, CWS scientists Ahisa Harjuniemi, WPIT, and Ben McGuire, Staff Scientist 1, re- reviewed
this jurisdictional delineation. The jurisdictional limits did not change.
Results
The results of the on -site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there is one jurisdictional
wetland area (Wetland AA) located within the project area (Figure 5, attached). On -Site jurisdictional
waters drain to Six Mile Creek. Six Mile Creek is part of the Santee River basin (HUC 03050103)' and is
rated "Class C Waters" by the NCDWR. According to the NCDWR, Class C Waters are defined as:
"Waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life
including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture."
On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total approximately 0.16 acre of jurisdictional wetland area. On-
Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are summarized in Table 1, next page.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2013 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
2 United States Department ofAgriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA -NRCS
North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
USDA -NRCS Hydric Sods List, http //sods usda gov /use /hydric /lists /state html, updated April 2012
° Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
s USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook 2007 USACE Regulatory National Standard Operating Procedures for
conducting an approved Jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD USACE Headquarters,
Washington, DC
'US Army Corps of Engineers, April 2012 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi
"HUC° is the Hydrologic Unit Code US Geological Survey, 1974 Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina
2

Star City Tract September 21, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3598
Table 1. Summary of on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
jiirisdicfionaf 7 g ?USACE/EP•A Rapaniis `- - `�`.:'
, t r 'Data <Potnt;(Dp),i 'µ
=Feature' Glassification.'M ±_ `,,. ';Acrea
Wetland AA Directly Abutting RPW DPI 0.16
Wetland Total: 0.16 ac.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S Total I 0.16 ac.
Wetlands
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as: "Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions."' The USACE uses three parameters to identify jurisdictional wetlands. These parameters are as
follows: 1) Hydrophytic Vegetation, 2) Wetland Hydrology, and 3) Hydric Soils. Except in certain atypical
situations, all three parameters must be present in order for an area to be determined to be a jurisdictional
wetland. This section describes each on -site jurisdictional wetland and the field observations that led to their
determinations.
Wetland AA is approximately 0.16 acre in extent and is a forested wetland (PF019). Wetland AA is
determined to be directly abutting a perennial RPW outside the project limits (Figure 5, attached). Wetland
AA exhibited low chroma soils (7.5YR 4/2) with many distinct mottles (2.5YR 3/6). Dominant vegetation
includes red maple, green arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), and sedges (Carex spp.). A Wetland
Determination Data Form representative of Wetland AA is attached as DPI. Photographs A and B (Figure
5, attached) are representative of Wetland AA.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on September 8, 2015 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would
be affected by the project. As of the date of submittal, no response has been received from the SHPO.
CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service10 and the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic
Landmarks Commission" database and found no sites of architectural, historical, or archaeological
significance within the project limits.
Protected Species
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data
Explorer 12 on September 8, 2015 to determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate
endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project area. Based on this review,
there are no records of federally - protected species within the project limits. Within a mile of the
project site there is a historical record of a Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). A copy of the data
review report is attached.
'Env i ronmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
9PF01 = Broad - leaved deciduous forested wetland, Cowardm et al Classification System, 1979
10 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, http //gis ncdcr gov /hpoweb/ Accessed June 15, 2015
"Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, http //www cmhpf org/homehistoncproperties him Accessed September 8,
2015
12 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https Hncnhde natureserve org/
3

Star City Tract September 21, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3598
Additionally CWS was contracted to conduct a protected species survey within the project limits. ThiE
survey included the entire parcel no. 231 - 131 -05 and the project was formerly known as "Providence
Farms ". CWS scientists Gregg Antemann, PWS, and Aliisa Harjuniemi, WPIT, conducted an
assessment of the project area on May 13, 2015. Transects were surveyed in areas identified as
potential habitat for possible protected species located in the area (Michaux's sumac [Rhus michauxii],
Schweinitz's sunflower [Helianthus schweinitzii], Carolina heelsplitter [Lasmigona decorata], and
Georgia aster [Symphyotrichum georgianum]). The survey determined that none of the
aforementioned protected species occur within the Star City Tract project limits. A copy of the
Protected Species Assessment report for the Star City Tract project, formerly known as "Providence
Farms ", is attached.
The Northern long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is one of the species of bats most impacted by the
white -nose syndrome disease. Habitat for the Northern long -eared bat includes forested areas of any
age, rocky areas with boulders, and culverts greater than four feet wide. Due to recent population
declines of almost 89% caused by white -nose syndrome and continued spread of the disease, the
Northern long -eared bat now receives protection as a Threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act. A Threatened species is defined as a taxon likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range13.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is requesting the documentation of amount of wooded
acres cleared in connection with any construction project that takes place within any county shown on
the June 30, 2015 White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Map, attached. This project takes place within
the Northern long -eared bat habitat range. Due to the nature of this subdivision construction project,
approximately 39.4 acres of wooded area will be cleared for this project and may trigger the need for a
bat survey. Please note that no physical surveying for potential habitat within this project has been
included in this scope at this time.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 39.4 acres of property into a single- and multi-
family subdivision located in South Charlotte (Figure 6, attached). South Charlotte is experiencing
rapid population growth due its proximity to Waxhaw, Monroe, Indian Land, and Fort Mill and there
is a need for residential housing in order to meet the current demand. This project is not a phased
project and potentially adjoining development projects are all owned by individuals and /or companies
not associated with the Star City Tract project.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
This site was chosen for the project due its minimal impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
Construction activities and impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters project will comply with all conditions
of Nationwide Permit 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890. All work will be constructed in the
dry. Impacts have been limited to less than less than 0.5 acre of wetland and no impacts to
jurisdictional streams are proposed.
In an attempt to minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters while still meeting the goals of the project, a "No
Build" alternative was considered. The property was purchased for the purpose of providing residential
housing to meet the growth and demand of an area in South Charlotte experiencing significant population
growth. A "No Build" option would not meet the project goals of providing necessary housing to meet the
current demand. Therefore, the No -Build Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
USFWS 1973 Endangered Species Act http //www fws gov /endangered /laws - policies/
4

Star City Tract September 21, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3598
The original plan was to develop the entire parcel no. 231- 131 -05. However, to avoid the wetland impacts
to the maximum extent practicable, the Star City Development Company decided to purchase and divide the
parcel in half and develop only the western portion of the aforementioned parcel. Proposed impacts for this
project are minimal.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of the Star City Tract project include
approximately 0. 16 acre of permanent impacts to a jurisdictional wetland (Figure 6, attached).
Proposed impacts are summarized in Table 2.
Wetland Impacts
Proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands total 0.16 acre. Permanent impacts to Wetland AA (0.16
acre) are the result of placement of fill in Wetland AA in order grade residential lots and construct a
road access (Figure 6, attached). Placement of fill in Wetland AA is necessary in order to complete the
subdivision and provide sufficient access for emergency vehicles throughout the development.
Wetland AA bisects the northeastern portion of the property. Therefore, alternative options for road
access while avoiding Wetland AA are limited. Tile drains will be installed to direct the groundwater
flow and proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to
downstream waters.
Table 2. Proposed im acts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
'• �;� #' Temporaryµ Impacts ,... `'
Jurisdictional' ` 't: • NWP` ` Y ,x ^ 4� 4In- acts:.«
r P
..t., InipactaTYpe ., �. �.ti•.`..or• t, > €7�r(linear ,,,, / . {-
Featuref,,l ,'ji« .r #,_ _• ^ }„ `'i, NO .,�, .. .r �MldCl°C). ya
-:.• ,lPeriA nent;; , feet)s,;; :• .�
': fug «'.0 ''�, �`
Wetland AA Fill 29 Permanent -- 0.16
To` tahiPeriiianent :Wetland44acts;,,':;- „,. ^'u,r; -•a, • x Or1i6 ;acre
a �,.:._a
��. _. _:.TM..Y:f x _ _st �a`;4:'r ,Rm, *.k .3-. °•S #'. % &.� `r WNH6 k_ k4' «i«. a ZA
'i � •J�
y #e?�. xi: ., v' -i • v`: I�,'13 ^` nia r�, «, �,,'-aa §3 ;. F:Fy"% U .�t�.i'. r
q, � n -�.' «.° fit: ji Y, tF�': "� ( #��:^'�`*.-' €9 ' {'� l.- .
I. Tofa1 Impacts tajurisdictional�Wafecs.of ttie:•U:tlS ", "ta = Ot`16'`acre
On behalf of Crescent Communities CWS is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification Application
with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 31, and pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890.
Compensatory Mitigation
As permanent wetland impacts total to greater than 0.10 acre, compensatory mitigation is required.
There are currently no mitigation banks available for the purchase of mitigation credits in the project's
service area. Proposed impacts requiring mitigation total 0.16 acre of permanent wetland impact. Star
City Development Company, Inc. proposes to mitigate for the permanent wetland impacts (0.16 acre)
at a 1:1 ratio through the purchase of 0.25 acre wetland mitigation credits from the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS). The wetland mitigation is proposed at a 1:1 ratio due to the relatively low
quality of Wetland AA (Photographs A and B).

Star City Tract September 21, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3598
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704 - 408 -1683, or through email at gregg @cws- inc.net should you
have any questions or comments regarding this request.
Sincerely,
1 C_ '
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Professional Wetland Scientist
oOtAQV9111ep
%V E 74,q ' OBB
�q'w Oa ��ooaos. Q O�
Id0.0001
r o°c GREM
fa� ww"�
Kelly Thames, WPIT
Project Manager
Attachments: Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 2. Aerial Imagery Map
Figure 3. Current USDA -NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 4. Historic USDA -NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 5. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Photographs A -B)
Figure 6. Proposed Impacts
Agent Authorization Form
Preliminary JD Form
Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP I -DP2)
Agency Correspondence
Protected Species Assessment Report
DMS Approval Letter
cc: Mr. Michael Tubridy, Crescent Communities.
Mr. Nate Doolittle, P.E., LandDesign

�
I mey Morris Road
VV
Providence Road
XI
02 7
Legend
Proiect Limits
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
'EF ERENCE: LISGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SERIES, VVEDDINGTON DATED 1998
FIGURE NO. USGS Site Location Map SCALE. 111 20001 DAT E 9-8-15
Star City Tract CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY: AVH
III Cws 2015-3598
Charlotte, North Carolina C­'in V�*flw S.— APPLICANT NO: bHECKED BY
~^ ~-
|
|

n'uJooS�s Qr .
.rte
1
r f
1
w
. 1
t .a. •
• 1' +i i
r
t
REFERENCE: BACKROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED 2015.
0 WRIO-P,
i
t
a
♦;
I • b
i

1®
Va O
CeB2
I IrB M
Providence Road
MeB
or 71
HeB
HeB
MeB
MeD
IrB
MeB
PaE
HeB
I
1 1485
PaE
CeD2 f�
PaE
wr
MeD
IrB
Legend
Soil Unit - Description
DaB - Davidson sandy clay loam, 2 -8% slopes I
DaD - Davidson sandy clay loam, 8 -15% slopes L�J Project Limits
DaE - Davidson sandy clay loam, 15 -25% slopes
MeB - Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 -8% slopes Roads
Mo - Monocan loam, 0 -2% slopes, frequently flooded e
PaE - Pacolet sandy loam, 15 -25% slopes w -
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA -NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, DATED 2014.
FIGURE NO. Current SCALE 111 10001 DATE: 9 -8 -15
USDA-NR CS Soil Survey Map CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY:
3 Star City Tract �� CWS I 2015 -3598 AVH
Charlotte, North Carolina c.,dinawenanesevkes APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY'
CWS Project No. 2015 -3598 WWW.CWS- INC.NET I KMT

IA
M O
MOB
C882
► rH
Tilley Morris Road
Mai He U
He9
Ira CeB2
CeD2
Mel?
Ni e$
I03
Providence Road a
1 r8
1 rB
I rB
eD
\`� BUD
Ce Z � � ..0
,
PaE MO
Da DaB
4 CeD2
DaE PaE 1
IrB '
0 Ce1
DaD PaE
DaB
DaD
DaD
Dab Me8
�~ I r6
Soil Unit - Description DaB
DaB - Davidson sandy clay loam, 2 -8% slopes Q
DaD - Davidson sandy clay loam, 8 -15% slopes
DaE - Davidson sandy clay loam, 15 -25% slopes Legend
MeB - Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 -8% slopes CeD2
Mo - Monocan loam, 0 -2% slopes, frequently flooded
PaE - Pacolet sandy loam, 15 -25% slopes Project Limits
(MeB) 1 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
rI REFERENCE: USDA -NRCS HISTORICAL SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, SHEETS 12 8 13, DATED 1976. Y B
1/ I V / \ P w A" 1 I yr l�
�i
FIGURE NO. Historical USDA -NRCS SCALE: I° 1 .1 000 , DATE: 9-8-15
Soil Survey Map 1 I CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY:
4 Star City Tract J ��� I 2015 -3598 AVH
Charlotte, North Carolina CaainawetlendS"_' APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY
\\ CWS Project No. 2015 -3598 WWW.CWS- 1NC.NET 1 KNIT

NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND
MAPPED WITH A SUBFOOT TRIMBLE GPS BY CWS, INC. ON AUGUST 29, 2013. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKELNBRUG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2012.
STREAM AND WETLAND LAYERS GENERATED BY CWS, INC., DATED AUGUST 2013.
hWh,-A
-approx. U.16 acre
\e
g,
\\ N
Legend
a
Project Limits
i
Wetlands
Streams
0 Buildings
Roads
0 Parcels
•Dry Data Point
600 300 0 600 Feet
U-) _ F-
o Q Y
d) m
w
w
Y
Q K S
O � U
0
LO
O L0
M r'
op
z
.— N o
w r-
p z
w a U
U S a
v U ¢
W
Z
V
I
V)
sZ
RS
'C
Gz.
L
CG
t�
� N
t p
L d
y L �
R
L Ci v
c�
�C
0
L
R.
G
i
FIGURE NO.

{
1
—�\ XI
I
LandDesign.
I \ �
i
CEO 1 / \ "
\InC AX PARCEL 231- 31 -07A \
V \, SOUS WAVERLY DEVELOPMENT \
"'k D.B. 29441, PG. 67
f�\ 8 \
Bol Id
ate-
\ Ar
p0' 1PROPOSED WETLANUIMPACT
-1-0.16 ACRE PERMANENT IMPACT (FILL)
J
0.163 ACRES OF -
- _ DISTURBED \ \
O%If1ATEEY 031 AC
r
- YhTLM1D D6TURBANCE � - /
!: �- - - —
AA �l � � V A pusnNC it cnuD
35' FASEMEM
1
TAX PARCEL 231.231 -17
l r /
D.B. 29141, PG. 658 j 1 ! / / - r COMMUNfR FNCROACHM[NT MFA� \ I
\. •� III I I TAX PARCEL 231 -31 -11
\ I I SHILOH LLC
_
1 I I 295.66 ACf — — c / �) } • I ��
\ FNRVItt FN(TOACMMEM UNE
\ \�\ - 111. � \ \\ 1 fEW. R�19DfRMGFU �- �,1 \'•' � \1 `'
STAR CITY TRACT - PROPOSED IMPACTS
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
SEPT. I ITH. 2015 LDI# 1015067
FIGURE 6

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Michael Tubridy representing Crescent Resources, Inc., hereby certify that C have
authorized Gregg Antemann of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my behalf and
take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request for
wetlands determination / permitting and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
C.
App lican signatur Agents signature
Date
Date
9/18/15
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 9/21/2015
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Gregg Antemann
550 E Westinghouse Blvd., 28273, Charlotte, NC
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Wilmington District
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Located south of Tilley Morris Road and east of Providence Road in Charlotte, North Carolina
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County /parish /borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.052847 °N; Long. 80.763017 0W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: six Mile Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters:
0 linear feet: width (ft) and /or 0 acres.
Cowardin Class:
Stream Flow:
Wetlands: 0.16 acres.
Cowardin Class: PF01
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non - Tidal:

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): August 29, 2013 & April 8, 2015
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should 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:
0 Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
app ' nt/consultant.
'H 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
0 U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000, Weddington, NC (1988)
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
❑ 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: 0 Aerial (Name & Date): Esri, accessed 2015 or
Other (Name & Date): Site photographs of the wetland
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
0)

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non - reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.

This preliminary JD finds that there "maybe" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later iurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
4
Signature and date of,
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
9/21/15

Site Latitude Longitude Cowardian
Number Class
Wetland AA N35.052847° W80.7630171 PFO1
Estimated
Amount of
Aquatic
Resource in
Review Area
0.16 acre
Class of Aquatic
Resource
non - section 10 -- wetland

Op W A TEA
It El
1. Processing
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: ®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
row.
1e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Star City Tract
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
N/A
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Star City Development Company, Inc.
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
04503 -935
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
N/A
applicable).
3d.
Street address:
( 1 TELEVISION PL
3e.
City, state, zip.
I CHARLOTTE, NC 28205
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Crescent Communities
4b.
Name:
Mr. Michael Tubridy
4c.
Business name
Crescent Communities
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
227 West Trade St., Suite 1000
4e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202
4f.
Telephone no.:
(980) 321 -6247
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name.
Gregg Antemann, PWS
5b.
Business name
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
(if applicable):
5c
Street address-
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e.
Telephone no.:
704 - 408 -1683
5f.
Fax no.:
704 - 527 -1133
5g
Email address:
gregg @cws -inc net
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID): 231 - 131 -05 (partial parcel)
Latitude: 35 052847 Longitude- -
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 80.763017
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size. 39.4 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Six Mile Creek
proposed project.
2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water C
2c. River basin- Santee (HUC 03050101)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application.
The site consists of an undeveloped forested parcel. Typical on -site vegetation includes tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), and autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata).
According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on -site soils consist of Davidson sandy
clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (DaB), Davidson sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (DaD), Davidson sandy clay
loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (DaE), Iredell fine sandy loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes (IrB), Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2
to 8 percent slopes (MeB), Monacan soils (MO), and Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (PaE). The Davidson,
Mecklenburg, and Pacolet soils are well drained. Iredell soils (IrB) are moderately well drained, and Monacan soils are
somewhat poorly drained. Monacan soils are listed in the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County as
having hydric inclusions. Iredell fine sandy loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes (IrB) and Monacan Soils are listed as a hydric soil
(hydric criteria 2133, 4) on the National Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.16 ac
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project.
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 39.4 acres of property into a single- and multi - family subdivision
located in South Charlotte (Figure 6, attached). South Charlotte is experiencing rapid population growth due its proximity to
Waxhaw, Monroe, Indian Land, and Fort Mill and there is a need for residential housing in order to meet the current demand.
This project is not a phased project and potentially adjoining development projects are all owned by individuals and /or
companies not associated with the Star City Tract project.
3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of the Star City Tract project include approximately 0. 16 acre of
permanent impacts to a jurisdictional wetland (Figure 6, attached). Proposed impacts are summarized in Table 2
Wetland Impacts
Proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands total 0.16 acre. Permanent impacts to Wetland AA (0.16 acre) are the result
of placement of fill in Wetland AA in order grade residential lots and construct a road access (Figure 6, attached).
Placement of fill in Wetland AA is necessary in order to complete the subdivision and provide sufficient access for
emergency vehicles throughout the development. Wetland AA bisects the northeastern portion of the property.
Therefore alternative options for road access while avoiding Wetland AA are limited. Tile drains will be installed to direct
the groundwater flow and proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to
downstream waters
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? El Yes ®No El Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? El Preliminary El Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known)- Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? I ❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ❑ Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number — Type of impact
Type of wetland Forested
(Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other) (acres)
Temporary (T)
then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
W1 ®P ❑ T
Fill
Wetland AA ® Yes
❑ No
® Corps 0.16
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
3e.
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
(Corps - 404, 10
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
other)
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ DWQ
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ DWQ
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
❑ DWQ
0.16
2h Comments: Permanent impacts to wetlands total 0.16 acre
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including
temporary impacts)
proposed on the site,
then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c.
3d.
3e.
3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width (linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet) feet)
S1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or ake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded I Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse F-1 Tar-Pamlico El Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f 6g
Buffer impact
number — Reason
Permanent (P) or for
Temporary (T) impact
B1 ❑P ❑T
B2 ❑P ❑T
B3 ❑P ❑T
6i. Comments:
Buffer
Stream name mitigation
required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
(square feet) (square feet)
Page 6of12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. This site was
chosen for the project due its minimal impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Proper sediment and erosion control
measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Construction activities and impacts to on -site
jurisdictional waters project will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890.
All work will be constructed in the dry. Impacts have been limited to less than less than 0.5 acre of wetland and no impacts to
jurisdictional streams are proposed.
In an attempt to minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters while still meeting the goals of the project, a "No Build" alternative
was considered. The property was purchased for the purpose of providing residential housing to meet the growth and
demand of an area in South Charlotte experiencing significant population growth. A "No Build" option would not meet the
project goals of providing necessary housing to meet the current demand. Therefore, the No -Build Alternative was eliminated
from further consideration.
The original plan was to develop the entire parcel no. 231 - 131 -05. However, to avoid the wetland impacts to the maximum
extent practicable, the Star City Development Company decided to purchase and divide the parcel in half and develop only the
western portion of the aforementioned parcel. Proposed impacts for this project are minimal.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. This site was
chosen for the project due its minimal impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Proper sediment and erosion control
measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Construction activities and impacts to on -site
jurisdictional waters project will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890.
All work will be constructed in the dry. Impacts have been limited to less than less than 0.5 acre of wetland and no impacts to
jurisdictional streams are proposed.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
® Yes ❑ No
❑ DWQ ® Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
® Payment to in -lieu fee program '
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Type I Quantity
® Yes
linear feet
❑ warm ❑ cool
square feet
0.25 acres
acres
acres
❑cold
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h: Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑ Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? >24 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why -
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan -
Stormwater Management Plan will be submitted to City of Charlotte, a certified local government reviewer and a letter of
approval will be submitted once approved.
® Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte
® Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the ❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project will not result in additional future development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
Sewer will tie into existing infrastructure.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. F-1 Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on September 8,
2015 to determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat
located within the project area. Based on this review, there are no records of federally - protected species within the
project limits. Within a mile of the project site there is a historical record of a Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). A copy
of the data review report is attached.
Additionally CWS was contracted to conduct a protected species survey within the project limits. This survey included the
entire parcel no. 231 - 131 -05 and the project was formerly known as "Providence Farms ". CWS scientists Gregg
Antemann, PWS, and Aliisa Harjuniemi, WPIT, conducted an assessment of the project area on May 13, 2015.
Transects were surveyed in areas identified as potential habitat for possible protected species located in the area
( Michaux's sumac [Rhus michauxii], Schweinitz's sunflower [Helianthus schweinitzii], Carolina heelsplitter [Lasmigona
decorata], and Georgia aster [Symphyotrichum georgianum]). The survey determined that none of the aforementioned
protected species occur within the Star City Tract project limits. A copy of the Protected Species Assessment report for
the Star City Tract project, formerly known as "Providence Farms ", is attached.
The Northern long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is one of the species of bats most impacted by the white -nose
syndrome disease. Habitat for the Northern long -eared bat includes forested areas of any age, rocky areas with
boulders, and culverts greater than four feet wide. Due to recent population declines of almost 89% caused by white -
nose syndrome and continued spread of the disease, the Northern long -eared bat now receives protection as a
Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. A Threatened species is defined as a taxon likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range .
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) is requesting the documentation of amount of wooded acres cleared in
connection with any construction project that takes place within any county shown on the June 30, 2015 White -Nose
Syndrome Buffer Zone Map, attached. This project takes place within the Northern long -eared bat habitat range. Due to
the nature of this subdivision construction project, approximately 39.4 acres of wooded area will be cleared for this project
and may trigger the need for a bat survey. Please note that no physical surveying for potential habitat within this project
has been included in this scope at this time.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? I ❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http. / /sharpfin nmfs noaa. gov /website /EFH— Mapper /map.aspx
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ® No
status (e g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on September 8, 2015 to determine the presence
of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. As of the date
of submittal, no response has been received from the SHPO. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service and the
Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission database and found no sites of architectural, historical, or
archaeological significance within the project limits.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? ❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM No. 3710447700L
Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS J` 9 -21 -2015
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided )
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site; S�� Y C 'I`T �' ` �— City /County: / (� ��� %`^ }� Sampling Date: Z °)
Applicant/Owner: Sl,a C-A,. n Dc vc��9�[ '.^) State: /VL- Sampling Point: API— We.1Ir.,�
Investigator(s): "13 11 <c /rv`G `` /61. 1111, �-15 Section, Township, Range:
v
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): V19 �r Local relief (concave, convex, none): f o� f `� Slope ( %): d:i M
Subregion (LRR or LR . /36 Lat: 3 S . S •3 0 UC�b Long: D0 . 7�6 V-1-5 5 Datum: /1I)0 f' S
Soil Map Unit Name: hZo of `15�,� S ^ °/� G I,`-, o ' S��� <t NWI classification: /-A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes z�—( No
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
v,c ! l,. d
HYDROLOGY
Yes _— No Is the Sampled Area \\
Yes No within a Wetland? Yes h- No
Yes No
1`S
m a -c C1,
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired:
check all that aoolvl
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
JCDrainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
eX Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—C
/` Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
Water- Stained Leaves (69)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes Z No
,`
Depth (inches): / f� �r Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes � No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
j'fr -,r sr�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Del /l/I
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. A «r
.2
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 7– (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
/00
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A /B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
7 0 ' =Total Cover
Total % Cover of: MultiDIv bv:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
SaDlino /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
B.
%� 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9•
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
_
,
4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
—
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
/1rC,�S�t V C fig
ICA(
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
3• `'' e'� S��r
^ ``
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
'
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4•
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub –Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10.
m) tall.
11 •
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody vine –All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
height.
1. <r— ,o'co -�
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
I V = Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
sheet.)
1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point:pP� `k,(flJ /) -/j
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
(2-9—
Matrix
Color (moist) %
S y< W-1 60
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type' Lee'
?, S ye W I . '-f-6 PL
Texture Remarks
e ("11,
y - -2 0
'/-, 5 '1A< �f ( 0
z,5` K j)[
`'b L PL
el' 1..,:.,
G
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (173)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (178)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes %S No
Remarks:
1 n � I <<- '�',�'(�
'l7 U ►" (,(� U''�'yl� � �� 1 "s < ^. �l�
f�° '} c�_1t��"1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: ST�� Ci 1 ff/) ,,4 City /County: /v�(. ���t� �`�i Sampling Date: �`mg /6
Applicant /Owner: SdLY �r 'Yr State: AIL Sampling Point: I r1
�h jI,(.I(wGI� +QK(Iit IIt�.,- �✓LG�IiiJ�[
Investigator(s): �^ �f ✓ Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): (S�ii�rC Local relief (concave, convex, none): ^° `- Slope ( %): () 2'
Subregion (LRR or L % b Lat: 3 S. 0
RA) S 3 UD b Long: — SS U • I 4 -r 3 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: ��' `ts"'� Cr i I S ^�S r` y'ft'rfr� NWl classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes L No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ No
Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes % No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No—=
Remarks:
!i Q
�� "j y/o iv1'� I S ��3r.sl. ��-• I, \� '`"�' CAL rl a/� L tr �/��
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired:
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
— Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (131 a)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No _ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No iC Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No__,-ir__
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
N t !r_
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
�' � � {� f/e ��
1. 4 / y.. ` 1,Wi fC'° '�
% Cove Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, FAC:
(A)
�
� o � r kV
_
'
or
=•'�
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
s (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
/ O
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
t� (A /B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
SaDlina /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
2 v
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
1
2 /t/ 7:/)
Total % Cover of
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
Multiolv bv:
x1=
x2=
x3=
x4=
x5=
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
I' z- = Total Cover ,
509'0 of total cover: 20% of total cover: — 4 -Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
l
V t :, -, ,, C, rg ( _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
2.
3.
4,
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in, (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20% of total cover:
,Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
height.
1 11 = I otai cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
I
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Cn T V
Yes _1� No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: w2' vll j
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks
0-to � y_ '� / (( � l,:;� .l-.
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Linina, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
— Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Remarks:
A:> � , -) d j) ce / ,. G
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Land and Water Stewardship
Pat N1c Cory Bryan Gorge Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Dimctor Secretary
September 8, 2015
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
aliisa @cws- inc.net
RE: Star City Tract; 2015 -3598
Dear Aliisa Harjuniemi:
NCNHDE -685
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources from our database that have been compiled for the project referenced
above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there
are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation /managed
areas within the proposed project boundary.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have
been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records
suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable
habitat exists and is included for reference. Please note that although there may be no documentation of
natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area
may not have been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for site - specific surveys
where suitable habitat exists.
In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may
update our records. Tables of natural areas and conservation /managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written
notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications.
Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally - listed species are documented near the
project area.
Thank you for your inquiry If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need
additional assistance, please contact Allison Schwarz Weakley at allison.weaklev aancdenr.aov or
919.707.8629.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Page 1 of 3

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Star City Tract
Project No. 2015 -3598
September 8, 2015
NCNHDE -685
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic. ,° °;,„ x "`L °ast p
"" ?EO ID; �`!W—entific Name a , Common`,Name -,
' "Element
Accuracl
Federal = ° <" .State w,a Global..";State
Group;°
,,
s
Observations
`.Occurrence
"Status i j Rank"
Date``
_ Status,> =
_. -Rank
Freshwater 9536
Villosa delumbis
Eastern Creekshell
2011 -06 -07
Current
3- Medium
- -- Significantly G4 S3
Bivalve
Rare
Natural 17246
Dry Basic Oak -- Hickory
- --
2006
Current
2 -High
- -- - -- G2G3 S2S3
Community
Forest
Natural 4605
Upland Depression
- --
2009 -06 -22
Current
2 -High
- -- - -- G2G3 S2S3
Community
Swamp Forest
Vascular Plant 13743
Delphinium exaltatum
Tall Larkspur
1800S
Historical
5 -Very
Species of Endangered G3 S2
Low
Concern
Vascular Plant 15141
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's Sumac
1794 -07 -21
Historical
5 -Very
Endangered Endangered G2G3 S2
Low
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site,Name , � � • t.,� �
Repr',esentat onal�Rating , _ .� a
:�CcMectiVe .Rating 11 . du
Providence Flats Swamp
R5 (General)
C,4 (Moderate)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mill
Managed'Area,Name °
Mecklenburg County Open Space
Mecklenburg County Open Space
Mecklenburg County Open Space
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Easement
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Easement
Radius of the Project Area
Owner- ° ° <Oytmer.Tvpe; °` -` -
Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Local Government
NC DENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program State
NC DENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at hM2ad/ ncnhde .natureserve.org /content/helo. Data query generated on September 8, 2015, source NCNHP, Q3 July 2015 Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before protect initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-685: Star City Tract
El
Wsrdane
--7
TM_
F . ns Rc�Jm' \
September 8, 2015
[:] Project Boundary Managed Area (MAREA)
E] Buffered Project Boundary
E:] NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Page 3 of 3
— F —
1 BYey
1:25,277
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Mi
0 0.325 0.65 ,3 km
Sources: E-, HERE DOL—. W—p —.—I P Corp. Crp GESCO.
USGS. FAO NPS, NRCAN, Geo8s— IGN Kadastv NL. Ordnance Survey,

'rl 550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CfVS CHARLOTTE, 28273
704 - 527 -1177 (vv) )
Carolina Wetland Services 704- 527 -1133 (fax)
May 21, 2015
Mr. Nathan Doolittle
LandDesign
223 North Graham Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject: Providence Farms
Protected Species Assessment
Matthews, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2015 -3598
Dear Mr. Doolittle:
LandDesign has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide a Protected Species
Assessment and technical report for the Providence Farms Site. The Providence Farms Site is
approximately 64 acres in extent and is located adjacent to Providence Road immediately south of
Interstate 485 in Matthews, North Carolina (Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map, attached). This report
summarizes findings concerning potential habitats for federally - protected species occurring on the
Providence Farms Site.
Literature Search
To determine which protected species are listed as occurring or potentially occurring at the Providence
Farms Site, CWS consulted the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Rare, Threatened,
and Endangered Species Inventory database for the USGS Weddington topographic quadrangle'. The
United States Fish and Wildlife Service's ( USFWS) North Carolina Distribution Records of
Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and Species of Concern list for Mecklenburg County was also
consulted: Both the NCNHP database and USFWS databases list three federally protected species as
potentially occurring in Mecklenburg County: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) [Table 1, next
page]. Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) is also listed as a candidate species as potentially
occurring on the Providence Farms Site. Table 2 (next page) summarizes the status listing definitions.
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data
Explorer on May 18, 2015 to determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered,
threatened species, or critical habitat located within the project area, Based on this review, there are no
current records of federally - protected species within the project limits or within a mile of the project
site. However, the data review shows a historical record for the Mixhaux's sumac within a one -mile
radius of the project area. A copy of the data review report is attached.
' North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Online Database Search Accessed May 12, 2015 Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Office of Land and Water Stewardship, Raleigh, NC Available at www ncnhp org
' United States Fish and Wildlife Service Accessed May 12, 2015 Endangered Species Online Database Search, Endangered Species
Department, Southeast Division, Atlanta, GA Available at http Hwww fws gov /endangered/
3 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https / /nenhde.natureserve.org/
NORTH CAROLINA . SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

Providence Farms May 21, 2015
Protected Species Assessment CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3598
Table 1. Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act Potentially Occurring on the
Providence Farms Site, Mecklenburg County, NC.
Major`a:',
"..'
'
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Scied ific,Nainc: ,
Common,Name`, a
Sfafas
at
Source
r6up
C
Candidate
A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing. (Formerly "C1" candidate species.)
BGPA
Protected
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
Sandy or rocky open woods, on highway
Federal
A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to
FSC
species of
support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the future, and many of
NCNHP 2014,
Plant
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
right -of -ways, roadsides, or edges of
similarity of
listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S /A) are not biologically endangered or threatened
and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
artificially- maintained clearings.
USFWS 2014
Experimental
A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental, nonessential
Along roadsides, old pastures,
population
Plant
Helianthus
Schweinitz's
E
transmission line right -of -ways, open
USFWS
Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or "PT ",
schwinitzii
sunflower
respectively.
areas, maintained habitat, ecotones.
Lasmigona
Carolina
Cool, clean, well - oxygenated water with
Mollusk
E
USFWS
decorata
heelsplitter
stable, silt -free stream bottoms
Adjacent to roads, along dry, rocky
Plant
Symphyotr�chum
Georgia aster
C
woodlands, and within utility rights -of-
NCNHP 2014,
georgianum
USFWS 2014
way
Table 2. Endangered Species Act Listing Definitions.
Code' � '�t ` ,Sfatus, t � 1. `` ° n'ition; `, : �, ;•� ��;`' °rFri
..`
'f ..S 1,,- ,m. Deti
,"
E
Endangered
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T
Threatened
A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
C
Candidate
A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing. (Formerly "C1" candidate species.)
BGPA
Protected
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
Federal
A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to
FSC
species of
support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the future, and many of
concern.
these species were formerly recognized as "C2" candidate species.
Threatened
due to
A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with another listed species and is
T(S /A)
similarity of
listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S /A) are not biologically endangered or threatened
and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
appearance
Experimental
A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental, nonessential
EXP
population
populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf] are treated as threatened species on public
land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
P
Proposed
Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or "PT ",
respectively.
Field Survey
CWS scientists Gregg Antemann, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) and Aliisa Harjuniemi,
Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) conducted a pedestrian survey of the project area on May 13,
2015. Mr. Gregg Antemann is qualified to conduct freshwater mussel surveys after completing the
Freshwater Mussel of South Carolina Workshop taught by Mr. Arthur Bogan and Mr. John Alderman.
Natural Vegetation Communities were identified using Schafale's Fourth Approximation. Vegetation
was identified to the lowest taxonomic level necessary using Radford et al.s and the aquatics species
were identified following the guidance presented in Bogan and Alderman, 200 86 . Transects were
assessed along the areas identified as potential habitat, as applicable, for potentially occurring federally -
protected species.
Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation, Schafale 2012
s Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas, Radford et al 1968
G Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South Carolina, Bogan and Alderman 2008
2

Providence Farms
Protected Species Assessment
Results
May 21, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3598
The site consists of an undeveloped forested parcel. The vegetation communities present on site include
Dry Oak Hickory Forest that transitions to a Mesic Oak Hickory Forest at lower elevations. The
floodplain consists of a maintained sewer right -of -way and typical Piedmont Alluvial Forest species
(Photograph A, attached). Additionally, Six Mile Creek borders the southeastern property boundary and
is considered a perennial stream with year -round flow. The portion of Six Mile Creek investigated
exhibits eroded banks and a highly embedded substrate mostly consisting of sand and silt with
occasional fine cobble (Photograph B, attached).
Typical on -site vegetation for upland areas includes tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), pignut
hickory (Carya glabra), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), and
autumn olive (Elaeagnus autumnata). Typical species in the floodplain include sweetgum, Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum). The sewer right -of -way
and stream were field- reviewed for potential habitat of the aforementioned species (Figure 2. Potential
Habitat Map, attached). Based on the site visit, the sewer right -of way located on the Six Mile Creek
floodplain is too wet to support Schweinitz's, Georgia Aster, or Michaux's sumac populations.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) — No Impact
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous shrub. It is densely hairy with compound leaves exhibiting evenly -
serrated leaflets. Flowers are small, greenish to white, in terminal clusters. Fruits are red drupes
produced from August to October. It has been listed as an Endangered species under the Endagered
Species Act (ESA) since 1989. It is found on the coastal plains of Virginia to Florida, with most
populations occurring in North Carolina. It prefers sandy or rocky open woods with basic soils, as well
as highway right -of -ways, roadsides, or edges of artificially- maintained clearings. Based on this site
visit, no potential habitat for Michaux's sumac was observed within the Providence Farms project
limits. No individuals of Michaux's sumac was identified during the field assessment in May 2015 and
therefore this project will have no effect on this species.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) — No Impact
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb with yellow rays and yellow centers. They can reach heights
of five feet. Populations are limited to the Piedmont of North and South Carolina. It has been listed as
an Endangered species under the ESA since 1991. The typical habitat for this plant includes roadsides,
old pastures, transmission line right -of -ways, open areas, either natural or human - maintained habitats, or
edges of upland woods. Based on this site visit, no potential habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower
exists within the Providence Farms project limits. No individual sunflowers were identified during the
field assessment in May 2015 and therefore this project will have no effect on this species.
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmizona decorata) — No Impact
The Carolina heelsplitter is a large mollusk with a dark brown, ovate, trapezoidal- shaped shell. Only
ten known populations of the Carolina heelsplitter exist. It has been listed as Endangered under the
ESA since 1993. It requires cool, clean, well oxygenated water with stable, silt -free stream beds.
Based on this site visit, the potential habitat for Carolina heelsplitter within the Providence Farms Site is
limited to the perennial stream (Six Mile Creek) located along the eastern property boundary.
The portion of Six Mile Creek investigated during this assessment exhibited degraded conditions
including eroded banks and a silty sand substrate. Due to the lack of a stable cobble and gravel
substrate and the instability of the eroded stream banks, no suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter

Providence Farms May 21, 2015
Protected Species Assessment CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3598
was observed. No individuals of Carolina heelsplitter were observed during the field assessment in May
2015 and therefore this project will have no effect on this species.
Geomia aster (Svmphvotrichum Qeomianwn) —No Impact
Georgia aster is a perennial herb with large purple flowers with white to reddish - purple centers. Flowering
occurs from early October to mid - November. Although the plant is currently listed as a Candidate species
under the ESA, it is not subject to federal protection. Typical habitat for the Georgia aster includes disturbed
areas such as roadsides, along dry, rocky woodlands, and maintained utility rights -of -ways. It is not tolerant of
shade. Based on this site visit, no potential habitat for Georgia aster was observed within the Providence
Farms project limits. No individuals of Georgia aster were observed during the field assessment in May 2015
and therefore this project will have no effect on this species.
Determinations
Based on the literature search and the results of the on -site assessment for the federally - protected
endangered, threatened, and candidate species, it has been determined that no potential habitats for
Schweinitz's sunflower, Mixhaux's sumac, Carolina heelsplitter, or Georgia aster exists in the project
area. None of these species were observed during the field visit on May 13, 2015 and the species are
unlikely to be present on the site. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the species
listed above.
Please do not hesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at (704) 408 -1683 or gregg @cws- inc.net should you
have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
Sincerely,
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 2. Potential Habitat Map
NCNHP Data Review Report
Representative Photographs
Aliisa Harjuniemi, WPIT
Staff Scientist I1

r
7
Af—k
-�J
01,
"4
> Zz
"J
3
NL
C.,
N
'01
Providence kk
-N
'z
J
1661. 4 'N
% Tilley Morris Road
X
7
�J
(J
fr-
4�" 'N _J I
A.
wl�
V.
Z.
_7�
-A
le riel.
fe, /I
:Z
e- Legend
r
S
Project Limit
N
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: LISGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGEL, VVEDDINGTON, DATED 1998
0
I: NN
SCALE 1" 2000' DATE 5-18-15 USGS Site Location Map FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO. _1RAVVN BY CWS
2015-3598 AV C-6- WA.,d S­— Providence Farms
APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY6 I Matthews, North Carolina
KMT WWW.CWS-INC.1 ET CWS Project No. 2015-3598

REFERENCE: BACKROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED MAY 2015.
SCALE: 1" : 600' DATE. 5 -18 -15 I�
CWS PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY. "H ^
2015 -3598 A `
� APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY CWS
w :u, c s.n
: - -
\ KMT WWW.CWS- INC.NET
Legend
Project Limits
Potential Habitat for Carolina Heelsplitter
Photo Location & Direction
600 300 0
Potential Habitat Map
Providence Farms
Matthews, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2015 -3598
600 Feet
FIGURE NO
�a

PWA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Land and Water Stewardship
Pat 14c Cory Bryan GosW Donald R. van der vaart
Governor Director Secretary
May 18, 2015
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
aliisa @cws -inc net
RE: Providence Farms; 2015 -3598
Dear Aliisa Harjuniemi:
NCNHDE -288
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources from our database that have been compiled for the project referenced
above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation /managed areas within the proposed project boundary submitted
with your request for information. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences'
table and map.
Also attached is a table summarizing rare species and natural communities that have been documented
within a one -mile radius of the project boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that these natural
heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is included for
reference. In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that
we may update our records. Tables of natural areas and conservation /managed area within a one -mile
radius, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written
notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications.
Maps of NC Natural Heritage Program data may not be redistributed without permission from the NCNHP.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence
if a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), or an occurrence of a Federally -
listed species is documented within or near the project area.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need
additional assistance, please contact Allison Schwarz Weakley at allison.weaklevOncdenr.00v or
919 707.8629.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Page 1 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Providence Farms
Project No. 2015 -3598
May 18, 2015
NCNHDE -288
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that Intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the NCNHP database
does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present, it may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys If needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare
species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
ManagedfAr "ea Name' `Owner° �.,, `Qininer Typ'e�` � A
m.i .
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
NOTE If the proposed protect intersects with a conservation /managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information If the protect intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally - listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the protect
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at htt°s / /ncnhde natu reserve, orglcontent/hel�. Data query generated on May 18, 2015, source: NCNHP, Q2 April 2015 Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before protect initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Providence Farms
Project No. 2015 -3598
May 18, 2015
NCNHDE -288
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Mecklenburg County
Taxonomic w. EO ID, - " °`: °Scierit f�c:Name Common`Name ` } Last - ` °' Elemerit °` `" A cu�ac 'Fedeial"
(} gib: +.. -> b,.�.� Y .,�.: - - #,.
,R gK1
State -fix vGlobal�.x'Sta
> te`.
t
"::e
.! 's r,✓
Group
p
,
! +NS • . f$, 1 rb,+^= � k Nm " G«.^Ar "p,. , .d�� em",„vr.
Statusra��,,.
Occucrerice_�•_,�'au�,, ;,
_ ;.
^.pt, Vrry d x.. M.s "✓:'f':
• ,..y,. . � 1, "
Status ����`��..Rank,< °Rank;
Mecklenburg County
.
Mecklenburg County Open Space
Mecklenburg County
" Date Status
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Easement
Freshwater 9536
Villosa delumbis Eastern Creekshell 2011 -06 -07 Current 3- Medium - --
Significantly G4 S3
Bivalve
State
Rare
Natural 17246
Dry Basic Oak -- Hickory - -- 2006 Current 2 -High - --
- -- G2G3 S2S3
Community
Forest
Natural 4605
Upland Depression - -- 2009 -06 -22 Current 2 -High - --
- -- G2G3 S2_S3
Community
Swamp Forest
Vascular Plant 13743
Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800S Historical 5 -Very Species of
Endangered G3 S2
Low Concern
Vascular Plant 15141
Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac 1794 -07 -21 Historical 5 -Very Endangered
Endangered G2G3 S2
Low
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Stte Name
- �° u _ _ Representational_Ratinq, - a,m 'Col„ 1 'ecti e' Rating,
A
. • a •� � °.�
Providence Flats Swamp
R5 (General) C4 (Moderate)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Oviiner; TYpe
Mecklenburg County Open Space
Mecklenburg County
Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space
Mecklenburg County
Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space
Mecklenburg County
Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space
Mecklenburg County
Local G_ ove_ rnment
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Easement
NC DENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program
State
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Easement
NC DENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program
State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https // ncnhde .natureserve.oralcontent[helo Data query generated on May 18, 2015, source NCNHP, Q2 April 2015 Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-288: Providence Farms
owOmv
May 18, 2015
[:] Project Boundary E3 Managed Area (MAREA)
F-I Buffered Project Boundary
M NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Page 4 of 4
1:26,154
0 0.225 045 0.9 Mi
0 0.35 0.7 1.4 km
S-- FO . MERE. D*L—. T_T—, V—P --
't p Corp.,
GEBCO. USGS. FAO. NPS. NRCAN. G..O"., IGN. KaCauer NL,

Providence Farms May 21, 2015
Protected Saecies Assessment CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3598
Photograph A. View of utility right -of -way, facing south.
Photograph B. View of perennial stream, facing upstream.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory Division of Mitigation Services Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
September 23, 2015
Michael Tubridy
Crescent Communities
227 West Trade St., Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202 Expiration of Acceptance: March 23, 2016
Project: Star City Tract County: Mecklenburg
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept payment for
compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table below. Please note that this
decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies
as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the
DMS will be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations
associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143 - 214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit /401 Certification /LAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on
the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu
fee to be paid by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at http: / /portal.ncdenr,org /web /eep.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by
permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below.
C13 I Stream (feet)
River Basin Location
Wetlands (acres) ( Buffer I Buffer H
(Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Cold I Cool I Warm I Riparian I Non - Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Catawba 03050101 I 0 Ij 0 0 0.16 Il 0 0 1 0
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please contact Kelly Williams at (919) 707 -8915.
Sincerely,
S0
James. anfill '
Asset Management Supervisor
cc: William Elliott, USACE- Asheville
1652 hail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: [phone] Internet: http:l /portal,ncdenr org /web /eep
An Equal Opportunity � Affirmative Action Emp'oyer — Made in part from recycled paper