20160242 Ver 1_Application_20160308

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. DrM
@
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd. V II
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office) AS0 8
704-527-1133 (fax) 2016
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins � ERMI ING
NC DWR-401 & Buffer Permitting Unit CWS Project #
512 N. Salisbury St
9th Floor, Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
3/7/2016
2015-3815
201 60242
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items:
® Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS
KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
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 four copies of the Pre -Construction Notification and application for
WQC 3890 for the Blue Max Trucking project. A check for the application fee of $570 is also attached
Copy to: File
Thank you,
ZT-3-
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 - BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder F1 Assign Action ID Number in ORM FI
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Blue Max Trucking
2. Work Type: Private F1 Institutional 11 Government Fl Commercial P7
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 63d and 63e]:
The purpose of this project is to reconfigure the site and provide the space needed for the facility's
growing dump truck fleet and the new flatbed truck fleet.
4. Property Owner/ Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Blue Max Trucking; POC: Mr. Denton Williams
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]:
SAW -2016-00094
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form B1b]:
Located northeast of the East Westinghouse Blvd. - Culp Road intersection in Charlotte, North
Carolina
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: 20514104
9. Project Location —County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg FFMAR:0:8 10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 62a]: Sugar Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Santee (HUC 03050103)
Authorization: Section 10 F1 Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 39
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
7 Section 10 & 404 F1
Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
March 7, 2016
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
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. 39
and Water Quality Certification No. 3890
Blue Max Trucking (SAW -2016-00094)
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2015-3815
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Higgins:
The Blue Max Trucking site is approximately 15 acres in extent and is located northeast of the East
Westinghouse Blvd. - Culp Road intersection in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1, attached). The purpose
of this project is to reconfigure the site and provide the space needed for the facility's growing dump truck
fleet and the new flatbed truck fleet. This will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Blue Max Trucking has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401
permitting services for this project. An executed Agent Authorization Form is attached.
Applicant Name: Blue Max Trucking; POC: Mr. Denton Williams
Mailing Address: 1015 E. Westinghouse Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: [phone]
Street Address of Project: northeast of the East Westinghouse Blvd. - Culp Road intersection in
Charlotte, North Carolina
Waterway: UT to Sugar Creek
Basin: Santee (HUC 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Tax Parcel ID number: 20514104
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.111548°, -80.903691°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Charlotte West, NC (1993) and Fort Mill, SC -NC (1980)
Site Conditions
The project site consists of an industrial area with forested margins (Figure 2, attached). Typical on-site
vegetation includes hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar stryraciva), eastern
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), water oak (Quercus nigra), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
winged elm (Ulmus alata), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia).
NORTH CAROLINA . SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET

Blue Max Trucking March 7, 2016
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 39 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015-3815
According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County' (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on-site soils consists of
Davidson sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (DaB), Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
(MeB), Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (MO). Monacan loam (MO) is listed as
having hydric inclusions in the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County and is listed as a
hydric soil on the National Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County.3
Jurisdictional Delineation
On November 25, 2015, CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi, Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) and
Kaitlin McCulloch, Staff Scientist 1, delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within
the project area (Figure 5, attached). Jurisdictional areas were delineated (flagged in the field), classified,
and surveyed with a sub -foot Trimble Geo7X GPS using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
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 Guidebook', with
further technical guidance from the 2012 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Regional Supplemene. A
Wetland Determination Data Form representative of on-site non jurisdictional upland areas is attached as
DPL The location of this data point is identified as DPI 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 February 4, 2016 Mr. Gregg Antemann, Ms. Kelly Thames, Ms. Aliisa Harjuniemi, Ms. Michelle
LaForge, and Ms. Kaitlin McCulloch of CWS met on-site with Mr. David Shaeffer of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) and Mr. Alan Johnson of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR). During this site visit, the extent of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were verified as depicted on
Figure 5 (attached).
Results
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there is one jurisdictional
stream channel (Stream A) located within the project area (Figure 5, attached). On -Site jurisdictional waters
drain to Sugar Creek. Sugar 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 7051inear feet of jurisdictional stream channel.
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 of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydric Sods List, USDA-NRCS
North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
3 USDA-NRCS Hydric Soils List, http //soils usda gov/use/hydric/lists/state html, updated 2014
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
e 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

Blue Max Trucking March 7, 2016
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 39 and WQC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015-3815
Table 1. Summary of on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Agency Correspondence
ultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on December 9, 2015 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would
be affected by the project. In a response letter dated October 13, 2015, the SHPO states that they "are
aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project". A copy of the SHPO response
letter is attached. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service$ 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
Explorer9 on December 9, 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. A copy of the data review
report is attached.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The Blue Max Trucking Facility is a growing business. The company grew by 35% over the last five
years and anticipates similar future growth as well. In 2014, Blue Max Trucking purchased 62 new
dump trucks, 61 dump trucks in 2015, and is anticipating the arrival of 40 additional dump trucks in
spring of 2016. Moreover, another purchase of dump trucks will occur later in the year. In addition to
the growing dump truck fleet, Blue Max Trucking is expanding their business to include flatbed
trucking services in the 2016-2017 fiscal year. Blue Max Trucking has also secured several long term
road project contracts, lasting a minimum of four to five years that will begin in 2016. In order to
support this growth in business, new employees are also needed. Therefore, this facility requires a
reconfiguration of their space to accommodate its growth for the dump truck fleet, the new flatbed
truck fleet, and the increased need for secure employee parking.
Blue Max currently utilizes the eastern portion of the project area to park, fuel, and service the Blue
Max dump trucks. Due to the anticipated growth of Blue Max Trucking, the facility seeks to continue
to utilize the eastern portion of the project area to service the expanding dump truck fleet and
reconfigure the western portion of the site for flatbed fleet parking, fueling, and maintenance while
also providing a safe employee parking area. The dedicated employee parking lot is planned to be
fenced for security purposes and has been recommended by Charlotte -Mecklenburg Police Department
and Sonitrol (Blue Max Trucking's security provider) on multiple occasions.
s North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, http //gis ncdcr gov/hpoweb/ Accessed December 9, 2015
9 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https //ncnhde natureserve org/ Accessed December 9, 2015
3
Stream
NCDWR Stream
Length
Jurisdictional
Perennial/
Classification
Acreage
Classification
Linear Feet
Feature
Intermittent
Point
(ac.)
(if)
(SCP)Score
Intermittent
Stream A
SCPI
29
705
0.08
,
' Stream Total.
7051f
0.08 ac.
Agency Correspondence
ultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on December 9, 2015 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would
be affected by the project. In a response letter dated October 13, 2015, the SHPO states that they "are
aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project". A copy of the SHPO response
letter is attached. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service$ 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
Explorer9 on December 9, 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. A copy of the data review
report is attached.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The Blue Max Trucking Facility is a growing business. The company grew by 35% over the last five
years and anticipates similar future growth as well. In 2014, Blue Max Trucking purchased 62 new
dump trucks, 61 dump trucks in 2015, and is anticipating the arrival of 40 additional dump trucks in
spring of 2016. Moreover, another purchase of dump trucks will occur later in the year. In addition to
the growing dump truck fleet, Blue Max Trucking is expanding their business to include flatbed
trucking services in the 2016-2017 fiscal year. Blue Max Trucking has also secured several long term
road project contracts, lasting a minimum of four to five years that will begin in 2016. In order to
support this growth in business, new employees are also needed. Therefore, this facility requires a
reconfiguration of their space to accommodate its growth for the dump truck fleet, the new flatbed
truck fleet, and the increased need for secure employee parking.
Blue Max currently utilizes the eastern portion of the project area to park, fuel, and service the Blue
Max dump trucks. Due to the anticipated growth of Blue Max Trucking, the facility seeks to continue
to utilize the eastern portion of the project area to service the expanding dump truck fleet and
reconfigure the western portion of the site for flatbed fleet parking, fueling, and maintenance while
also providing a safe employee parking area. The dedicated employee parking lot is planned to be
fenced for security purposes and has been recommended by Charlotte -Mecklenburg Police Department
and Sonitrol (Blue Max Trucking's security provider) on multiple occasions.
s North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, http //gis ncdcr gov/hpoweb/ Accessed December 9, 2015
9 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https //ncnhde natureserve org/ Accessed December 9, 2015
3

Blue Max Trucking March 7, 2016
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 39 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015-3815
In order to reconfigure the site to provide the space needed for the expanding dump truck fleet, the
new flatbed fleet, and a dedicated employee parking lot unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. are necessary. The project proposes to pipe a portion of a seasonal stream located parallel to
Westinghouse Blvd. (Figure 6, attached) in order to provide the adequate space needed for employee
parking during the site reconfiguration.
Piping the downstream portion of Seasonal Relatively Permanent Water (RPW) A on the south side of
the parking lot would create approximately 10,000 additional square feet of property that is currently
unusable due to the presence of the stream. This would create the space needed for 24 additional
parking spaces, security fences, and medians (Figure 6, attached). Minimum requirements for
American Disability Act (ADA) approved parking would also be added. All current employees and
future employees, including truck drivers, will park their personal vehicles in this dedicated space.
The increased space would also allow for a dedicated entrance to the planned employee parking lot.
Ultimately, a dedicated employee parking lot would reduce the foot traffic throughout the site and
therefore promote a safer workplace for Blue Max employees.
Avoidance and Minimization
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters. Construction activities and impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will comply with
all conditions of Nationwide Permit 39 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890. All work will be
constructed in the dry. Impacts have been limited to less than 300 linear feet of jurisdictional stream
channel.
The proposed piped conveyance is necessary in order to construct an entrance and exit point to the
planned employee parking lot during the necessary reconfiguration of the site. Also, land fronting
Westinghouse Boulevard is valuable due to the existing road access and high visibility. The eastern
portion of the parcel along Westinghouse Boulevard consists of a 100 -year FEMA floodplain (not
included in the delineation). Therefore, alternatives for increasing usable acreage along road frontage
are limited.
The original design proposed to pipe the entire stream reach (Figure 7, attached). This design totaled 705
linear feet of permanent impacts to jurisdictional stream channel. However, to minimize impacts to the
greatest extent practicable an alternative design proposes impacts to approximately 299 linear feet of stream
channel (Figures 6 and 8, attached). Additionally, the stream reach proposed to be piped is low quality and
scored LOW utilizing the North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NC SAM worksheet, attached).
The substrate of the stream reach proposed to be impacted consists of rip rap, is highly embedded, and
provides very little habitat; therefore the adverse erect of the proposed impacts is minimal.
Additionally, the limits of disturbance were further reduced by selecting the location for the new fenced
employee parking lot in an area that is already utilized as a parking area. However, the existing parking area
requires an extension to accommodate the site reconfiguration. Therefore, the limits of disturbance is limited
to the streamside area (Figures 6 and 8, attached). The limits of disturbance total 0.49 acre.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts wherever possible. The currently proposed site
plan was developed as a result of this alternatives analysis and avoidance and minimization process. We
believe that the current site plan is the best possible plan that meets the project goals while avoiding impacts
to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent practicable.
4

Blue Max Trucking March 7, 2016
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 39 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015-3815
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 39, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters
associated with this project are limited to a total of approximately 299 linear feet (If) of jurisdictional
stream channel (Stream A). Impacts to Stream A are the result of the extension of an existing pipe.
Figure 6 (attached) depicts the proposed plan overview and Figure 8 depicts the proposed pipe
extension. The proposed impacts are summarized in Table 2 (below).
Table 2. Proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional
Temporary
Impacts
Impacts
Feature
Impact Type
or
(linear
(acre)
Permanent
feet)
Stream A
Pipe
Permanent
299
003
Total Permanent Stream Impacts
2991f
0.03 acre
The project proposes to extend an existing 54 -inch pipe located beneath Westinghouse Boulevard.
The pipe extension will be completed with a 54 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). The pipe
extension is necessary in order to reconfigure the facility layout and increase usable acreage for an
entrance and exit point to the dedicated employee parking lot while maintaining the hydraulic
connection of Stream A. Proposed impact will result in 299 linear feet of permanent impact to
Seasonal Stream A. A plan view is attached as Figure 7.
On behalf of Blue Max Trucking, 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. 39 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890.
Compensatory Mitigation
Both upstream and downstream portions of Stream A are currently piped and the existing channel is highly
modified and exhibits severe erosion. Aquatic biology sampled was minimal. Additionally, the channel
substrate is largely comprised of rip rap (Photograph B, attached). The proposed impacts to the
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were reduced significantly from 705 linear feet to 299 linear feet. Due the
relatively poor quality of the stream, as assessed with the North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology
(NC SAM worksheet, attached) and the avoidance and minimization of the impacts to the maximum extent
practicable, CWS respectfully requests for mitigation to be waived for this project.

Blue Max Trucking March 7, 2016
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 39 and WQC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015-3815
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704-408-1683, or through email at [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding this request.
Sincerely,
ZT-8- C. AU�_
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Professional Wetland Scientist
��yo+o�rrr�
�gq�aPt ��T�� Pooed
IOD.n�b z
E
AV
11+10ry11004�ti
7�w�di
Kelly Thames, PWS
Project Scientist
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 5a. Jurisdictional Boundaries Map
Figure 5b. NC SAM Assessment Reaches
Figure 6. Proposed Impacts – Overview
Figure 7. Proposed Impacts – Original Design
Figure 8. Alternative Design
Agent Authorization Form
Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 39
NC SAM Worksheets
Agency Correspondence
Representative Photographs (A -B)
cc: Mr. Denton Williams, Blue Max Trucking

�o�
oo
.� .. water •.\ ;' y •, •• iIi �• S.
T 1 '
Cs T� ank r r f
C jM..-Q ,. 1 t •� y j �'
fp`
-
� ✓ _ . y het , \ '" .d ` �•, �,� :�r�� T-- � ��. , y� ��• • ,
E Westinghouse Blvd. --�
Lin
. 1
/ s c0 • • --
�
.fir- .• �� "t _ H•'1 6
_•
L_
U R .r
Culp Road
I
!!2i
;tib a ��\ • : > , � f
.+ 1
\ 0.q
.. -.. f`
. \`. � � =y � . '. -.. ... ! tom} ,, / "`+ / i,„ J`s t • - � /p
0
Cb w
Legend
t \� ' • 'n'sa` Project Limits
REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC USGS QUADRANGELS; CHARLOTTE ' •f 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
WEST, NC (1993), AND FORT MILL, SC -NC (1980) '
SCALE: 1" • 2000' DATE 11-17-15
USGS Site Location Map FIGURE No
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2015-3815 AVH « Blue Max Trucking
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY. CAROLINA Charlotte, North Carolina
KMT WETLAND SERVIZES
CWS Project No. 2015-3815

MeD DaB PaE
MeB —
` 0� CeD2
MeB V�' -
-
Me
MeB M0 ' s, MeD `
Ep
MeD M -�,� CeD2
114e� M0
'"�
Nations Ford Road O GeB2 qp
e B GAO MeB a coQ 1 '�
kB �Z Me Pi
Ge -
f DaB PaE
N
v
DaB
IUB Ur C} 4S u Q� DaB-
1\ Q ` MeD M e D
a�
D a B c�a,� CeD2
Me MeB PaE
MeD
MkB r8 MO 9
MeB- CeD2 Ce
M e6\`,�
�r �\ McDV C PaE
` Culp Road Cel
\ 4d Ce62 aE
C
e4 Pt
Ur Gat
IrB MeD
CeD2
MeB
MeB
Legend 00,
Soils - Description
DaB—Davidson sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopesM O Project Limits
MeB—Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
MO—Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded ,
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
REFERENCE HISTORIC USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, SHEET 11, DATED 1916 aB
SCALE1" . 1000' DATE 11-17-15 Historic USDA-NR('S Soil Survey
Mecklenburg
N0.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY 9 of Mecklenburg County
2015-3815 AVH Blue Max Trucking
APPLICANT NO. CHECKED BY. �n'VI AT CAROLINA Charlotte, North Carolina
I WETLAND SERVICES CWS Project No. 2015-3815

Z4 =��� `�.• m _ �Em N�ld �02UNOO NOISMJ3
Lill
'8 `JNldVOSaNV' `3i1S
i",Y 3 4 3 a a 3G ON 'Dii012J fH0 '•anl9 3snOHJNIIS3M 'D S W Q s g m
� = NO1i1GG ' JNicnin8 xvn 3mo g w
M E = o w
/ r
/�
w ;
" 3@
OA <g �
I I q YJ�Y� ��yu�` � ® - t�` I 1 I I YYYK��� 'Y � o y( ! � W \ 2<$0gj(•
gam=
• � �<� � nY71�a
2 p i "4: yyy 1ST y
97Yd5 :xAlBYd
n � o
iYg J I 4 0
g $
o
.60
R. k8F4u U I <"
m�N
§
•� < � a1 111:
� n� tl tli
_
pO
k
W
m $ p �• k r I Q�� � t�� � �� �
00
�zU �U
C_
41
"-
�
Sa z
I w c wu '• Ua
zw�sWV
W
J I 3 n t
IV � �ti zOz
tz
Czph � ilYjj2h41 I I � � w III fw_.ii�� mv.ZiJ WWT4 y
f p w �
> g f I ce Q S�m
0 25
lN31Y35V3 NfYB0 mdaks 04
Pmm�\�\
1 \wa h
d
u �o
k
/ O i &8ao 0 0qc, CC xxv1a��s
I A S� gg a�R�� 0"1 3l9
6MP'ds-20i, L

I
r WA
L
41frRA15 SFCWGF AREA
T -T
E457WC TRUCK M
PARMNG EX5
S'nq'ICZ AAIE4
.�
8, CaNcom MALLS0: 8 C6�-7_r
........ ... ... E",17137NG SHRW SM To NOTE- EN,'W L(
PROL40f 5069 Sr. Of
274 S.F. LAW.'f —
LANDSCAPED AREA FW
L%AIYD (TWI.) ?ag NPLRWOUS PARKIN, -
AREA RFWRr?dFVT
Ile
I _FR&V3EVr0 LARGE AM
TRa SUCH AS SOUITArRN rX P11RKb'JC SPACES
RED W OR APPROVED q.
"1
rQUAI, A ON. Or 8" Nr. -17 4;
AND 2' A030 AT T" A, fw
WG (TSA)
Za NG GaA WE PARK&C
4i7 ;h
USE LAIVOSCAPC TMOSERS
I &I
AROLWD TREES TO PHOMCT
FRO/ WM�=AR DAMAGE.
(Typ') 24
�
24
W'.
CKWGRfEN turfs-XJS71NG
.41
.2 JrY ALO(.K
&
EXISONG CRAtll PARKING12-WO
EWIRWEEN
4RMWBELOW" BROWN CONTROL
Proposed Impact - Stream A — — — — -
Limits of Disturbance 299 If permanent impact (piped conveyance) — — — — —
0.49 ac. Proposed 290 -linear foot 54" RCP _L� — — — —
I I 411MY, W 'R CAL,
PROP. BWU)NO Legend
ADDMON
RARYSILT Project Limits
PRO7EC770N < PAWJNG Limits of Disturbance C;0
57D. 30.11 V I
L - Proposed Piped Conveyance
Existing Pipeof
n
Avoided Intermittent Stream
si REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIs LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIs DEPARTMENT DATED 2012. 1 A A4W511 1;LL F,,',PV',7NG I GCA TIaNIS TO AMD UM
-
l.rri NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED AND
SURVEYED USING SUB -FOOT GPS UNIT BY CWS, INC. ON NOVEMBER 25, 2015. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE 100 50 0 100 Feet YE
NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE. Fr
1 S. PLEASE CAU (700) JJC-6769 FOR AN N5PCC1%
SCALE: ill - 100, DATE: 2-24-16Alternative Design FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2015-3815 AVH Blue Max Trucking
11
ANT NO CHECKED BY. CAROLINA Charlotte., North Carolina 8
APPLICANT
Z: I
KMT WETLAND SERVICES CWS Project No. 2015-3815

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Denton Williams representing Blue Max Trucking, hereby certify that I 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.
Awjl-� c. ;4��
Agent's signature
12/9/15
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
la
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
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
1 e
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification.
❑ Yes N No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ 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
❑ Yes
® No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h
below
❑ Yes
® No
1h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Blue Max Trucking
2b. County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town*
Charlotte
2d
Subdivision name
N/A
2e
NCDOT only, T I P or state
project no
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
TUESDAY TWO LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No
24052-059
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
N/A
3d
Street address-
1015 E WESTINGHOUSE BV
3e
City, state, zip,
CHARLOTTE NC 28273
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g
Fax no
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Blue Max Trucking
4b.
Name*
Mr Denton Williams
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
Blue Max Trucking
4d
Street address
1015 E Westinghouse Blvd
4e
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28273
4f
Telephone no.-
[phone]
4g
Fax no
4h
Email address
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Gregg Antemann, PWS
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
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
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
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):
20514104
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude- 35.111548 Longitude -
80 903691
(DD DDDDDD) (-DD DDDDDD)
1c
Property size.
15 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc ) to
proposed project
Sugar Creek
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water.
C
2c
River basin
Santee (HUC 03050103)
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

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 project site consists of an industrial area with forested margins (Figure 2, attached) Typical on-site vegetation
includes hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar stryraciflua), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides),
water oak (Quercus nigra), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), autumn olive (Elaeagnus
umbellata), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia),
and muscadine (Vitas rotundifolia)
According to the Soil Survey �of Mecklenburg County (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on-site soils consists of Davidson
sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (DaB), Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (MeB), Monacan loam,
0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (MO) Monacan loam (MO) is listed as having hydric inclusions in the North
Carolina Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County and is listed as a hydric soil on the National Hydric Sods List for
Mecklenburg County
3b List the total estimated acreage
of all existing wetlands on the property
0 acre
3c List the total estimated linearl feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
705 linear feet of perennial stream channel
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project-
rojectThe
TheBlue Max Trucking Facility is a growing business The company grew by 35,% over the last five years and anticipates
similar future growth as well In 2014, Blue Max Trucking purchased 62 new dump trucks, 61 dump trucks in 2015, and is
anticipating the arrival of 40 additional dump trucks in spring of 2016 Moreover, another purchase of dump trucks will occur
later in the year In addition to ttie growing dump truck fleet, Blue Max Trucking is expanding their business to include flatbed
trucking services in the 2016-2017 fiscal year Blue Max Trucking has also secured several long term road project contracts,
lasting a minimum of four to five years that will begin in 2016 In order to support this growth in business, new employees are
also needed Therefore, this facility requires a reconfiguration of their space to accommodate its growth for the dump truck
fleet, the new flatbed truck fleet, and the increased need for secure employee parking
Blue Max currently utilizes the eastern portion of the project area to park, fuel, and service the Blue Max dump trucks Due to
the anticipated growth of Blue Max Trucking, the facility seeks to continue to utilize the eastern portion of the project area to
service the expanding dump truck fleet and reconfigure the western portion of the site for flatbed fleet parking, fueling, and
maintenance while also providing a safe employee parking area The dedicated employee parking lot is planned to be fenced
for security purposes and has been recommended by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and Sorntrol (Blue Max
Trucking's security provider) on multiple occasions
In order to reconfigure the site to provide the space needed for the expanding dump truck fleet, the new flatbed fleet, and a
dedicated employee parking lot unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S are necessary The project proposes
to pipe a portion of a seasonal stream located parallel to Westinghouse Blvd (Figure 6, attached) in order to provide the
adequate space needed for employee parking during the site reconfiguration
Piping the downstream portion of Seasonal Relatively Permanent Water (RPW) A on the south side of the parking lot would
create approximately 10,000 additional square feet of property that is currently unusable due to the presence of the stream
This would create the space needed for 24 additional parking spaces, security fences, and medians (Figure 6, attached)
Minimum requirements for American Disability Act (ADA) approved parking would also be added All current employees and
future employees, including truck drivers, will park their personal vehicles in this dedicated space The increased space
would also allow for a dedicated entrance to the planned employee parking lot Ultimately, a dedicated employee parking lot
would reduce the foot traffic throughout the site and therefore promote a safer workplace for Blue Max employees
3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No 39, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with this
project are limited to a total of 299 linear feet (If) of jurisdictional stream channel (Stream A) Impacts to Stream Aare the
result of the extension of an existing pipe Figure 6 (attached) depicts the proposed plan overview and Figure 8 depicts
the proposed pipe extension The project proposes to extend an existing 54-inch pipe located beneath Westinghouse
Boulevard. The pipe extension will be completed with a 54-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) The pipe extension is
necessary in order to reconfigure the facility layout and increase usable acreage for an entrance and exit point to the
dedicated employee parking lot while maintaining the hydraulic connection of Stream A Additionally, this will increase
visible frontage along Westinghouse Boulevard Proposed impact will result in 299 linear feet of permanent impact to
Seasonal Stream A. A plan view is attached as Figure 7
Page 4 of 13
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?
Comments
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
Preliminary El Final
4c
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known)
Agency/Consultant Company:
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
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
6.
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
If yes, explain
Page 5 of 13
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
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h Comments
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
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
Pipe
Stream A
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
4-5'
299'
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
299'
31 Comments Permanent impacts to jurisdictionial streams total 299 linear feet.
Page 6 of 13
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 lake 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
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no
51 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 ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c.
6d.
6e
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required.
131 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
F1 Yes
❑ No
83 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
61 Comments
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters Construction
activities and impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U S will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit 39 and
Water Quality Certification No 3890 All work will be constructed in the dry Impacts have been limited to less than 300 linear
feet of jurisdictional stream channel.
The proposed piped conveyance is necessary in order to construct an entrance and exit point to the planned employee
parking lot during the necessary reconfiguration of the site Also, land fronting Westinghouse Boulevard is valuable due to the
existing road access and high visibility The eastern portion of the parcel along the Westinghouse Blvd. consists of a 100-year
FEMA floodplain (not included in the delineation) Therefore, alternatives for increasing usable acreage along road frontage
are limited
The original design proposed to pipe the entire stream reach (Figure 7, attached). This design totaled 705 linear feet of
permanent impacts to jurisdictional stream channel. However, to minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable an
alternative design proposes impacts to approximately 299 linear feet of stream channel (Figures 6 and 8, attached)
Additionally, the stream reach proposed to be piped is low quality and scored LOW utilizing the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Methodology (NC SAM worksheet, attached) The substrate of the stream reach proposed to be impacted
consists of rip rap, is highly embedded, and provides very little habitat, therefore the adverse effect of the proposed impacts is
minimal
Additionally, the limits of disturbance were further reduced by selecting the location for the new fenced employee parking lot in
an area that is already utilized as a parking area. However, the existing parking area requires an extension to accommodate
the site reconfiguration Therefore, the limits of disturbance is limited to the streamside area (Figures 6 and 8, attached). The
limits of disturbance total 0 49 acre.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts wherever possible. The currently proposed site plan was
developed as a result of this alternatives analysis and avoidance and minimization process. We believe that the current site
plan is the best possible plan that meets the project goals while avoiding impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S to the
greatest extent practicable
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 39 and Water Quality Certification No 3890
All work will be constructed in the dry.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
—7
Type
Quantity
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3c Comments
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature.
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only).
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
0 acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
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
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
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
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e
Required mitigation
(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 9 of 13
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?
lb
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
❑Yes [_1 No
Comments
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this protect?
%
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑ No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why The project will have no significant
changes to the impervious surface
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan,
I
❑ 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?
❑ 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
4a
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other.
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? I
❑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?
El Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13
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
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter )
Comments -
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® 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.
Page 11 of 13
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?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
❑ Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on December 9,
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 A copy of the data review report is attached
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitats
❑ 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
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 December 9, 2015 to determine the presence
of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project In a response
letter dated October 13, 2015, the SHPO states that they "are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project". A copy of the SHPO response letter is attached CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service
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 3710453000L
Z71Mr.
Gregg Antemann, PWS
C1 .
3-7-2016
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM Reach 1
M."U111uaniGs user MdflUai versiun L. i
USACE AID # NCDWR #
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs Attach a copy of the USGS 7 5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach Seethe NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed Seethe
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1 Project name (if any) Blue Max Trucking 2 Date of evaluation 11/25/15
3 Applicant/owner name Mr Denton Williams 4 Assessor name/organization KMT, KJM & AVH, CWS, Inc
5 County Mecklenburg 6 Nearest named water body
7 River basin Santee on USGS 7 5 -minute quad Sugar Creek
8 Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach) 35 110823, -80 903214
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Stream A Reach
9 Site number (show on attached map) 1 10 Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet) 563
11 Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet) 6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth
12 Channel width at top of bank (feet) 5 13 Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14 Feature type ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15 NC SAM Zone ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16 Estimated geomorphic ❑A` l
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream) (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)
(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17 Watershed size (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0 1 miz) ®Size 2 (0 1 to < 0 5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0 5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18 Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I [:III ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ®303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area
List species
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19 Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach
❑B No flow, water in pools only
❑C No water in assessment reach
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris dams,
beaver dams)
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples straightening, modification above or below culvert)
❑B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances)
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap)
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric Reach 1
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other stormwater (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought, for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition)
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses0
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F M
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
g 9
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
N
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
t M
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
El
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*************************"***'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b Bedform evaluated Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11 d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach —whether or not submerged Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams) Not Present (NP) =absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70% Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand ( 062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0 062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc )
11d ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13 ❑No Water ❑Other
Reach 1
12b ®Yes - ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply If No, skip to Metric 13
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ []Aquatic reptiles
❑ ®Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑ Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corblcula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ®Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ ®Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ®Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples ditches, fill, sod compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
®B ®B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
ON ON
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs Qunsdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
®C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
HE Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex watertight dam, sediment deposit)
®C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
HE Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect Consider "leaf -on" condition
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

xeacn 1
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
®D ®D ®D ®D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
®B ®B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (�B) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet)
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ®A Medium to high stem density
®B ❑B Low stem density
R ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel) Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide
LB RB
❑A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent
®B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons ❑No Water ❑Other
25b Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter)
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch
7 Water Quality Stressors Stormwater This assessment reach receives a large amount of stormwater runoff due to the surrounding impervious
area

Reach I
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Blue Max Trucking Date of Assessment 11/25/15
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization KMT, KJM & AVH, CWS, Inc
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
YES
YES
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM Reach 2
ITPRX11-14-i VIP] 11W-1 C[a i4 GLlAN
USACE AID #. NCDWR #
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs Attach a copy of the USGS 7 5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach Seethe NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed Seethe
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1 Project name (if any) Blue Max Trucking 2 Date of evaluation 11/25/15
3 Applicant/owner name Mr Denton Williams 4 Assessor name/organization KMT, KJM & AVH, CWS, Inc
5 County Mecklenburg 6 Nearest named water body
7 River basin Santee on USGS 7 5 -minute quad Sugar Creek
8 Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach) 35 110823, -80 903214
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Stream A_ • Reach
9 Site number (show on attached map) 2 10 Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet) 142
11 Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet) 6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth
12 Channel width at top of bank (feet) 5 13 Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14 Feature type ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15 NC SAM Zone ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16 Estimated geomorphic ❑A
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream) (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)
(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17 Watershed size (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0 1 mit) ®Size 2 (0 1 to < 0 5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0 5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18 Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Pnmary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish 0303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area
List species
[]Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19 Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach
❑B No flow, water in pools only
❑C No water in assessment reach
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris dams,
beaver dams)
❑B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples straightening, modification above or below culvert)
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile —assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances)
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap)
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
Reach 2
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no flood plainhntertidal zone access
[examples causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other stormwater (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather—watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought, for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition)
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mossesU)
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
-q
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
EIB
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
❑C
vegetation
Multiple logs
Y rC
r
El
Sand bottom
snags and (including lap trees)
Cc
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
"
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
"*'***`*******"**'****'*'"REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS******************"******'"*
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b Bedform evaluated Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach —whether or not submerged Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams) Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70% Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand ( 062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0 062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc )
11d ❑Yes [:]No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Keach 2
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13 [:]No Water ❑Other
12b ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply If No, skip to Metric 13
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa' for Size 3 and 4 streams
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑ Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbrcu/a)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ ®Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ®Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
®B ®B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
®C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex watertight dam, sediment deposit)
®C Urban stream (z 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
®E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect Consider "leaf--on"condition
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams) Reach 2
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
®D ®D ®D ®D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E R ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
®B ®B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
0 ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet)
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ®A Medium to high stem density
®B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel) Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide
LB RB
❑A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent
®B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons ❑No Water ❑Other
25b Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter)
❑A < 46 ❑ B 46 to < 67 [:]C 67 to < 79 ❑ D 79 to < 230 [_1E z 230
Notes/Sketch
7 Water Quality Stressors Stormwater This assessment reach receives a large amount of stormwater runoff due to the surrounding impervious
area

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Blue Max Trucking Date of Assessment 11/25/15
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization
KMT, KJM & AVH, CWS, Inc
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
`NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA '
Overall
LOW
LOW
Reach 2

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
December 21, 2015
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Extend Culvert for Blue Max Trucking, Culp Road, Charlotte, CWS 2015-3815,
Mecklenburg County, ER 15-2763
Dear Ms. Harjuniemi:
Thank you for your letter of December 9, 2015, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
}°✓Ramona M. Bartos
Location 109 Fast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax [phone]-6599

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Pat McCrory Bryan Gossage Susan Kluttz
Governor Executive Director Secretary
Clean Water Management Trust Fund
December 9, 2015
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
aliisa@cws-inc net
RE- Blue Max Trucking, 2015-3815
Dear Aliisa Harjuniemi:
NC N H DE -1042
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 John Finnegan at john.finnegana-ricdenuov or 919.707.8630.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program

El
a
m
C Le)
m
S 0
O
r
.aYMON
Lo
C
V r N O
�F-N LW
•. m 0M2
Z
Q V E z
L d Z
�m ao
z a
ii
a Z
Z N a)
Z (DN
OC O N
C
Lcn
=3 L ++
0
L
cv cacu m
L +L a)
M CU
a) ate--. =3
3 CU
C 0
O 0
L E cu
>+ p!
0 d l)
N
O N 0
N M c0
EU
d = a)
O
CU
c Q
� a)
� � L
CL 'L- cn
0 o
a C a3 m
LCU
+r �
L_ N
3 w a. 0
N d) C-
+ m C >+
C,~
Z: a) ,~CU
m >'
+� ` 0 ?�
as ?-
U)=3 Co
cu N aL
` U
U C O
C
cu o m O
cm C - m
toU
r o m E
O
"O O �
> _0 C
0 60 �
E W _ -C
N O)
N C
a) a) N •�
Eoa)U
O Q-0 a)
N L O a)
U C -C a)
W _ =3a)
3 s a
U Q) M O
U U m 7
o CL
(D cn E 3
E w m d
2
N O Z
^� L
LL ^L ZJ
} O
m c m
E``°L
O .`
a
O 2 C
a
0 0 �o °
C L 7 a)
0 0 0 `
co
c`p o Z U
c L, a)
O .V
a... w
C c
()
E U
a)
d � O
CL a) a
~ U'
d - -
o
3
O E
0
c
m
c
O
a m
ca o
Q
o y
>, w
U C1
N
a �
ca
m
c �
O U
a c
C c
O a
U v
rn
� U
N g
C () O_ a
Oa3 f0
2
� o
a
a7 j
-p O
a) a
N >,
•� C M
ca V � �
o ,o
V is CL
m Z 2
N Z
� c U
CL u EliZ
C ca 0)
a>
t U
r fn
ca a
(L U N
� Q ()
U) E cn
ca
CL o
v d mo
O E LL
Z
0 In
ami amiU $- _
2
as ` Zi
Co
aa� yam'
m as c a
CI () - a)
m Y W
C C U H
m m a) 0
aD
a)
0 -
LO LO
0
N
a)
O
U
O
V
C3
a
z
U
z
U
7
O
U1
Ld
0
N
O)
a)
.O
E
U
a)
c
0
a
w
m ai
cca
ca
a)
CD co
a�
@Z
�U
Z
m
O
I_
U
ca
c
O
O y
C p
O
m w
c -
ao
X C
(D ami
as C
as C6
ca E
c
o 2
ar C
C:
LE
O
N
a)
0)
m
CL

m
W
C
O
C
t
3
to
4i
L
Q O
a ��tA
OIYMN
IA O
NCD t0 V � O
m
F N L W
m
mz
£z
4) u U
ui m z
a` a
Iii
►i
d Y
w' C
C/)
N
U)
R
t0 Y
N
4)
C
E CC
M
G
0
U'
m
L L
U.
N
c
a O
U
m
a�
U
rn
rn
E
V
r a
c
cu
c
mC:
O
O O
J
c
W
W
d
r E
O
Nl Z
7
O
E
d C
£U
d
C
AI
ca E
L ca
U (a
_0 4)
m E
c :3
O C
CD
•E .c
U
cu
Q)
J �
v �
M Cl)
C
R
N
7
N
4)
E CC
E CC
CC
C
C C
O
L
L
L
L L
U.
N
c
a O
U
F 0
W
U
0
0 0
E
V
O
O O
J
L
Q
co
d
w+
C
V
C y
U
U
d
L t0
V
O
Cl)
O
C2
W
CO
v
2
2
O
d
r E
O
Nl Z
7
O
E
d C
£U
d
C
AI
ca E
L ca
U (a
_0 4)
m E
c :3
O C
CD
•E .c
U
cu
Q)
J �
v �
M Cl)
O J J J J J J
m����
L c c c c c c
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0
t5 U U U U U U
C C C C C C
L A Y Y Y Y Y Y
7
t
r.+
3 U U U U U U
fl Q Q Q a Q d
CU)C/) CO CO U) co
C C C C C C
E aaaaaa
=0000000
p to c c c c c c
Z = = = D D =
N 0 0 0 0 0 0
y M O D U U U U
QQ alCDmmcocm
1E l� 4l O N N 4) N
in
an
cu
cua
LO
0
N
N
0
0
t
O
v
C7
a
z
U
z
0
0
L6
0
N
rz
I
-0
m
v
v
T
cc
c
c
0
LA
0
C
CC
C
E CC
E CC
E CC
CC
C
C C
L
ammaia�aim
L
L
L
L L
F 0
0
0
0
0 0
L(D0(D(D(.D(.D
O J J J J J J
m����
L c c c c c c
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0
t5 U U U U U U
C C C C C C
L A Y Y Y Y Y Y
7
t
r.+
3 U U U U U U
fl Q Q Q a Q d
CU)C/) CO CO U) co
C C C C C C
E aaaaaa
=0000000
p to c c c c c c
Z = = = D D =
N 0 0 0 0 0 0
y M O D U U U U
QQ alCDmmcocm
1E l� 4l O N N 4) N
in
an
cu
cua
LO
0
N
N
0
0
t
O
v
C7
a
z
U
z
0
0
L6
0
N
rz
I
-0
m
v
v
T
cc
c
c
0
LA
0

A
ti Q
c W
m
m � m
'o
0 a
of .( c
4)
.0 a m
E
o ❑ ❑ ❑
v
G
ON

0