20170283 Ver 1_401 Application_20170317

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 2016-02090 BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: RlverGate Tract
2. Work Type: Private ❑� Institutional ❑ Government ❑ Commercial 11
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and B3e]:
The purpose of this project is to develop the property into a multi -family residential subdivision.
CWS is requesting an Approved JD, Nationwide Permit Nos 12, 18, and 33, and Water Quality Certificate Nos. 3884,
3890, and 3893.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
MPV Properties; POC: Mr. Bailey Patrick
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS Inc. POC: Gregg Antemann, PWS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]: SAW -2016-02090
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
located southeast of the South Tryon Street and Steele Creek intersection in Charlotte, North
Carolina; 35.0978720, -80.9856070
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]:
21906117 and existing sewerline easement
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 62a]: UT to Walkers Branch
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Santee (HUC 03050103)
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
HStandard Permit
d Nationwide Permit # 12, 18, and 33
❑ Regional General Permit #
✓❑ Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 & 404 ❑
Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
0 Compliance
0 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 8, 2017
Mr. David Shaeffer
Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Satellite Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury St., 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Request for Approved Jurisdictional Determination and
Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 12, 18,
and 33, and Water Quality Certificate Nos. 3884, 3890, and 3893
SAW -2016-02090: RiverGate Tract
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2016-3940
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Higgins,
The RiverGate Tract site (Mecklenburg County Tax Parcel No. 21906117) is approximately 42 acres in
extent and is located southeast of the South Tryon Street and Steele Creek Road intersection in Charlotte,
North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2, attached). The purpose of this project is to develop the property into a
multi -family residential subdivision. MPV Properties 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: MPV Properties; POC: Mr. Bailey Patrick
Mailing Address: 521 E. Morehead St. Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-367-5020
Street Address of Project: Southeast of the South Tryon Street and Steele Creek Road intersection in
Charlotte, North Carolina
Waterway: UT to Walker Branch
Basin: Catawba (HUC` 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: North Carolina
Tax Parcel No(s): 21906117 and an existing sewerline easement
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.0978720, -80.9856070
USGS Quadrangle Name: Fort Mill, SC -NC (1980)
' "HUC" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
NORTH CAROLINA o SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Page 1 of 9

RiverGate Tract March 8, 2017
Request for AJD and PCN Pursuant to NWP 12, 18, and 33 CWS Project No. 2016-3940
Current Land Use
The project area consists of an undeveloped forested area (Figure 3, attached). Typical on-site vegetation
consists of American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), Carolina shagbark
hickory (Carya carolinae-septentrionalis), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), red maple
(Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), white oak
(Quercus alba), willow oak (Quercus phellos), winged elm (Ulmus alata), autumn olive (Elaeagnus
umbellata), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and various grasses (Festuca
spp.).
According to the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA-NRCS) Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County (Figure 4, attached), on-site soils consist of Iredell
fine sandy loam (I to 8 percent slopes [IrB]), Mecklenburg fina sandy loam (2 to 8 percent slopes [MeB]
and 8 to 15 percent slopes [MeD]), Monacan loam (0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded [MO]), and
Pacolet sandy loam (15 to 25 percent slopes [PaE]). Of the on-site soils, Monacan loam (MO) and Iredell
fine sandy loam (IrB) are listed on the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County and the
National Hydric Soils List' as containing hydric inclusions.
Approved Jurisdictional Determination
On July 27, 2016, CWS scientists Kaitlin McCulloch, Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) and
Michelle LaForge, Project Scientist, delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands,
within the project area (Figure 5, attached). A request for an approved jurisdictional determination was
submitted to the USACE on October 11, 2016 (SAW -2016-02090). On -Site jurisdictional features were
field -verified by Mr. David Shaeffer of the USACE on November 10, 2016.
A review of the site plan in February 2017, revealed additional areas that were outside the original project
limits located at both the Walker Branch Drive and Rivergate Parkway stub roads. On February 16, 2017,
CWS scientists Caleb Sullivan, Staff Scientist I, and Dan Zurlo, Staff Scientist I, field reviewed and
delineated the additional areas. The original Wetland CC (0.06 acre [located at the stub road of Rivergate
Parkway]) was expanded and separated into herbaceous and forested areas. The expanded boundary of
Wetland CC has not been verified by the USACE, and therefore, CWS is submitting a new request for an
Approved Jurisdictional Determination (JD Request form, attached). Wetland Determination Data Forms
representative of forested and herbaceous Wetland CC are attached as DPI and DP2, respectively. A
Wetland Determination Data From representative of an upland area adjacent to Wetland CC is attached as
DP3. Figure 5 (attached) depicts the location of the on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. On-site
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total approximately 0.902 acre of jurisdictional waters of the U.S.,
including 3,518 linear feet of stream channel (Table 1, next page).
United States Department of Agriculture, 2013. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
3 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999. North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA-NRCS
North Carolina State Office, Raleigh.
° United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015. 2015 National Hydric Soils List by State.
Page 2 of 9

RiverGate Tract March 8, 2017
Request for AJD and PCN Pursuant to NWP 12, 18, and 33 CWS Project No. 2016-3940
Table 1. Summary of On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional Stream
Jurisdiction
Approximate
Linear Feet (If)
Approximate
Acreage (ac.)
USACE/EPA Rapanos Classifications
Stream A
RPW
2,760
0.63
Stream B
RPW
758
0.07
Stream Total:
3,5181f
0.70 ac.
Jurisdictional Wetland
Jurisdiction
Approximate
Linear Feet (If)
Approximate
Acreage (ac.)
USAGE/EPA Rapanos Classification
Wetland CC Forested
Adjacent to RPW
N/A
0.117
Wetland CC Herbaceous
Adjacent to RPW
N/A
0.085
Wetland Total:
N/A
0.202 ac.
Stream and Wetland Total:
3,5181f
0.902 ac.
In addition to the jurisdictional features notated above, there is one isolated non -404 jurisdictional
wetland located within the project limits. This wetland has no upstream or downstream connection to the
jurisdictional waters of U.S. and was field -verified by David Shaeffer of the USACE on November 10,
2016 as an isolated wetland feature. Isolated Non -404 Jurisdictional Wetland BB is approximately 0. 14
acre and is located in the southern portion of the project limits (Figure 5, attached [DP4, attached]). As
this wetland is less than one-third acre, notification is not required to impact the entire isolated
non -404 wetland.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on December 28,
2016 to determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service,' the
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission online database,' and the Mecklenburg County
Polaris 3G historical mapping program' and found no historical structures, buildings, sites, or districts
within the project limits. A response letter from the SHPO dated January 24, 2017 states "We have
conducted a review of the project area and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on project as proposed." A copy of the SHPO response
letter is attached.
Protected Species
CWS scientists performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data
Explorer' on December 27, 2016 to determine the presence of any federally -listed, candidate endangered,
threatened species, or critical habitat located within the project area. Based on the NCNHP review, there
Classifications of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and Non -Relatively
Permanent Waters (Non-RPWs). Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have year-round flow, and seasonal streams
that have continuous flow at least seasonally. Two classifications of jurisdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and connection to
TNWs. These classifications include either adjacent or directly abutting. Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within floodplains or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection. Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TNW.
c North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed December 28, 2016.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, http://www.cmhpf org/homehistoricproperties.htm. Accessed December 28, 2016.
B Mecklenburg County Polaris3G. http://polaris3g.mecklenburgcountync.gov/#mat=220833&pid=05509109
9 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/. Accessed December 27, 2016.
Page 3 of 9

RiverGate Tract March 8, 2017
Request for AJD and PCN Pursuant to NWP 12, 18, and 33 CWS Project No. 2016-3940
are no records of federally -protected species within the project limits or within a mile of the project site.
A copy of the NCNHP report is attached.
In addition, a letter requesting concurrence was sent the United States Fish and Wildlife Services
(USFWS) on January 18, 2017. A response letter dated February 15, 2017 from the USFWS states that
there is suitable habitat for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB [Myotis septentrionalis]), however the
project will "occur at a location where any incidental take that may result from associated activities is
exempt under the 4(d) rule." In addition, the USFWS concurs that no other federally -protected species
will be affected by the proposed project. A copy of the USFWS response letter is attached.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project is to develop the property into a multi -family residential development in
Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 6, attached). This project will provide residential housing to meet the
growth and demand of an area of Mecklenburg County that is experiencing significant population growth
due to its proximity to downtown Charlotte, North Carolina and Fort Mill, South Carolina. This property
is in a prime location based on its proximity to Interstate 77. The property is also located three miles from
McDowell Nature Preserve on Lake Wylie which provides scenic trails, fishing docks, and boat/kayak
access ramps to Lake Wylie.
This project is not a phased project and adjoining subdivisions are all owned by individuals and/or
companies not associated with this subdivision.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
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 Permits 12, 18, and 33 and Water Quality Certificate Nos. 3884, 3890, and
3893. All work will be constructed in the dry.
Temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters have been limited to 134 linear feet of jurisdictional stream
channel and 0.0502 acre of jurisdictional wetland. Permanent impacts to wetlands have been limited to
0.0998 acre of jurisdictional wetland. No permanent impacts to jurisdictional streams are proposed.
Alternatives Analysis
No Build Alternative
In an attempt to minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters while still meeting the goals of the project, a
"No Build" alternative was considered. The property is being purchased for the purpose of providing
residential housing to meet the growth and demand of an area in Mecklenburg County experiencing
significant population growth. A "No Build" option would not meet the project goals of providing
necessary housing to meet the current demand. Therefore, the No Build Alternative was eliminated from
further consideration.
Alternative Design 1
Alternative Design 1 proposed placing culverts within the unnamed perennial tributary (Stream A) to
Walkers Branch. Impacts under this design would have easily exceeded 300 linear feet, triggered a
Page 4 of 9

RiverGate Tract March 8, 2017
Request for AJD and PCN Pursuant to NWP 12, 18, and 33 CWS Project No. 2016-3940
Section 404 Individual Permit, and resulted in the degradation of downstream waters. Additionally,
modelling and subsequent reshaping of the adjacent 100 -year Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) floodplain would have required extensive above -grade fills within the floodplain and a lengthy
review process.
Alternative Design 2
Alternative Design 2 would result in the same amount of temporary impacts to streams, but more
permanent impacts to Wetland CC. The Rivergate Parkway bridge and associated fill, riprap apron, water
utility line, and sewerline, would result in permanent impacts to Wetland CC totalling 0.155 acre (Figure
7, attached [Table 2, below]). This would result in mitigation for the proposed design. However, as the
waterline, sewerline, and rip rap apron were all able to be redesigned to reduce impacts to Wetland CC,
this site design was rejected.
Table 2. Summary of Alternative of Analysis
Proposed Design Plan
The proposed site plan has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. wherever practicable through the use of large bridges. The Walker Branch Drive and Rivergate
Parkway bridges are unavoidable in order to provide adequate emergency access for ingress and egress
and have been designed to span and avoid impacts to the on-site streams. However, the location of
Wetland CC (located at the end of the Rivergate Parkway stub road) is the only logical, feasible location
for the Rivergate Parkway bridge abutment. Therefore, permanent impacts to Wetland CC for the bridge
abutment were unavoidable in order to create the span bridge across RPW Stream A at the Rivergate
Parkway crossing (Figures 8, attached).
In order to construct the bridges, a temporary stream crossing will be installed to access the southern side
of RPW Stream A. This temporary stream crossing will be placed in the same footprint at the proposed
bridge and will avoid additional impacts to Wetland CC. The temporary stream crossing will utilize rip
rap, washed stone, and a 62 -linear foot culvert. All materials will be removed after construction is
complete and the stream will be restored to pre -construction contours.
To comply with City of Charlotte requirements, additional sewerlines and waterlines will need to be
constructed to provide the development with these utilities. Per the City of Charlotte, the sewerline will
have a 30 -foot permanently maintained easement and the waterline will have a 20 -foot permanently
maintained easement through wetlands and at stream crossings. The stream crossings have been limited
to two sewerline stream crossings (one at Walker Branch Drive and one at Rivergate Parkway) and one
waterline stream crossing (at Rivergate Parkway). All areas disturbed by the work shall be re -graded to
leave the area in a smooth condition, sloped for drainage. All impacted stream banks shall be stabilized
with riprap below the ordinary high water mark and native plantings will be installed above the ordinary
high water mark. These plantings will include native live stake species. CWS is currently working with
Page 5 of 9
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Figure
Total Wetland
Proposed Design Plans
Stream Impacts
Wetland
Wetland
No.
Impacts (ac.)
(if)
Impacts (ac.)
Impacts (ac.)
Alternative Design 1
N/A 300+ If
0.155 ac.
0.0458 ac.
0.201 ac.
Alternative Design 2
7 1341f
0.155 ac.
0.0458 ac.
0.201 ac.
Proposed Design Plan
8-10 1341f
0.0998 ac.
0.0502 ac.
0.150 ac.
Proposed Design Plan
The proposed site plan has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. wherever practicable through the use of large bridges. The Walker Branch Drive and Rivergate
Parkway bridges are unavoidable in order to provide adequate emergency access for ingress and egress
and have been designed to span and avoid impacts to the on-site streams. However, the location of
Wetland CC (located at the end of the Rivergate Parkway stub road) is the only logical, feasible location
for the Rivergate Parkway bridge abutment. Therefore, permanent impacts to Wetland CC for the bridge
abutment were unavoidable in order to create the span bridge across RPW Stream A at the Rivergate
Parkway crossing (Figures 8, attached).
In order to construct the bridges, a temporary stream crossing will be installed to access the southern side
of RPW Stream A. This temporary stream crossing will be placed in the same footprint at the proposed
bridge and will avoid additional impacts to Wetland CC. The temporary stream crossing will utilize rip
rap, washed stone, and a 62 -linear foot culvert. All materials will be removed after construction is
complete and the stream will be restored to pre -construction contours.
To comply with City of Charlotte requirements, additional sewerlines and waterlines will need to be
constructed to provide the development with these utilities. Per the City of Charlotte, the sewerline will
have a 30 -foot permanently maintained easement and the waterline will have a 20 -foot permanently
maintained easement through wetlands and at stream crossings. The stream crossings have been limited
to two sewerline stream crossings (one at Walker Branch Drive and one at Rivergate Parkway) and one
waterline stream crossing (at Rivergate Parkway). All areas disturbed by the work shall be re -graded to
leave the area in a smooth condition, sloped for drainage. All impacted stream banks shall be stabilized
with riprap below the ordinary high water mark and native plantings will be installed above the ordinary
high water mark. These plantings will include native live stake species. CWS is currently working with
Page 5 of 9

RiverGate Tract March 8, 2017
Request for AJD and PCN Pursuant to NWP 12, 18, and 33 CWS Project No. 2016-3940
the design engineer (LandDesign) to develop a buffer restoration plan and specifications for these
temporary impacts.
As the two proposed bridges and proposed impacts occur within a Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) Floodplain (FEMA Firm No. 3710440900K), LandDesign, the engineer for the site, has been
coordinating with Mecklenburg County concerning the design. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) will be submitted to the floodplain administrator for Mecklenburg County for review.
In addition, in early February, stormwater and erosion control plans were submitted to the City of
Charlotte, as part of the Land Development review submission. LandDesign is currently waiting to
receive comments from the City of Charlotte regarding the submitted plans.
This project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid all other impacts wherever possible. No permanent
impacts to jurisdictional streams are proposed. 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.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 12, 18, and 33, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional
waters associated with this project are limited to a total of 0.0998 acre of jurisdictional wetland (Wetland
CC) and are due to maintained utility easements and fill for a bridge abutment. No permanent impacts to
jurisdictional stream channels are proposed. Figure 6 (attached) depicts the proposed subdivision layout
overview and proposed impacts are summarized in Table 3 (below) and on Figure 8-10 (attached).
Table 3. Proposed Impacts to On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional
Feature
Impact NWP
No. I No.
Type of ImpactTemporary/
L 0
Permanent
Figure
No.
Impact (If)
Impact (ac)
S1 12 Oen Trench Utility Crossing
Temporary
9
20
0.005
S2 12 Oen Trench Utility Crossing
Temporary
9
22
0.005
RPW Stream A
S3 33 Culvert for Construction Access
Temporary
9
62
0.014
S4 12 Oen Trench Utility Crossing
Temporary
10
30
0.007
Total
Stream
Im acts
134117
1 0.310 ac.
Jurisdictional Impact
NWP Forested/
Type of Impact
Temporary/
Figure
Impact (If)
Impact (ac)
Feature No.
No. Herbaceous
Permanent
No.
W 1
18 Forested
Fill
Permanent
8
N/A
0.0640
W2
12 Forested
Open Trench
Utility Crossin
permanent
8
N/A
0.0007
12 Forested
Open Trench
Utility Crossing
permanent
8
N/A
0.0041
Wetland CC W3
12 Herbaceous
Open Trench
Utility Crossin
Temporary
8
N/A
0.0502
W4
18 Herbaceous
Fill
Permanent
8
N/A
0.0310
W5
Total Temporary Stream Impacts:
134117
0.310 ac.
Total Permanent Wetland Impacts:
N/A
0.0998 ac.
Total Temporary Wetland Impacts:
N/A
0.0502 ac.
Total Wetland Impacts:
N/A
0.1500 ac.
Total Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the US.:
1341f
0.1810 ac.
Page 6 of 9

RiverGate Tract March 8, 2017
Request for AJD and PCN Pursuant to NWP 12, 18, and 33 CWS Project No. 2016-3940
Nationwide Permit No. 12: Impact Nos S 1. S2. S4. W2. W3, and W4
Under Nationwide Permit (NWT) No. 12, unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of a
waterline and sewerline include the mechanized clearing of forested and herbaceous wetland vegetation
and jurisdictional stream crossings (Figures 8-10, attached). Permanent impacts will be the result of a
30 -foot wide permanently maintained easement for a sewerline and 20 -foot wide permanently maintained
easement for a waterline, in which forested Wetland CC will be cleared, converted, and maintained as a
herbaceous wetland. Temporary impacts will be the result of a 30 -foot sewerline permanent easement
through herbaceous Wetland CC, two stream crossings, and a 20 -foot waterline permanent easement at
one stream crossing. Sewerlines and waterlines will be installed via open trench methods.
Stream Impacts: Sl, S2, and S4
All proposed stream impacts will be temporary (Figures 9-10, attached). Temporary stream crossings will
be returned to their original grade and stabilized using bioengineering and replanted with native hardwood
trees and shrubs. No riprap will be placed in the stream bed. The number of crossings has been kept to
the minimum necessary. The utility crossings will not result in any loss of waters of the U.S.
Temporary Impacts to RPW Stream A total 72 linear feet and are the result of one waterline crossing and
two sewerline crossings. The 20 -foot waterline permanent easement will result in 20 linear feet of
temporary impact to RPW Stream A (Figure 9, attached [S1]). The two 30 -foot sewerline crossings will
result in 52 linear feet of temporary impacts to RPW Stream A (Figures 9 and 10, attached [S2 and S4]).
The permanent easement for the sewerline at impact S2 overlaps with the temporary access road by eight
linear feet. Therefore, in order to avoid double counting impacts, the 30 -foot permanent easement will
only result in 22 linear feet of impact to RPW Stream A, hence the 52 linear -foot total sewerline impacts.
Wetland Impacts: W2, W3, W4
Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands total approximately 0.0502 acre. Permanent impacts are
the result of clearing forested Wetland CC to facilitate the construction of the proposed sewerline and
waterline (Figure 8, attached). Temporary impacts are the result of the proposed sewerline through an
existing sewerline easement and herbaceous Wetland CC (Figure 8, attached).
A proposed 20 -foot waterline permanent easement through forested Wetland CC will result in 0.007 acre
of permanent impacts to forested Wetland CC through clearing (Figure 8, attached [W2]). A proposed
30 -foot sewerline permanent easement will result in 0.0041 acre of permanent impacts to forested
Wetland CC through clearing and 0.0502 acre of temporary impacts to herbaceous Wetland CC (Figure 8,
attached [W3 -W4, respectively]).
Nationwide Permit No. 18: Impact Nos. W1 and W5
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 18, unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of the
Rivergate Parkway bridge abutment includes 0.0950 acre of jurisdictional wetland (Figure 8, attached).
The proposed bridge abutment will result in 0.0640 acre of fill to forested Wetland CC and 0.0310 acre of
fill to herbaceous Wetland CC (W1 and W5, respectively). As Wetland CC is located at the end of the
Rivergate Parkway existing stub road, there was no alternative location for the bridge abutment. The
Rivergate Parkway bridge and Walker Branch Drive bridge will span the existing on-site streams and
result in no permanent impacts to on-site streams.
Page 7 of 9

RiverGate Tract March 8, 2017
Request for AJD and PCN Pursuant to NWP 12, 18, and 33 CWS Project No. 2016-3940
Nationwide Permit No. 33: Impact No. S3
Under Nationwide Permit No. 33, unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of the RiverGate
subdivision will be the result of 62 linear feet of temporary stream impacts for a temporary stream
crossing (Figure 9, attached [S3]). The proposed temporary stream crossing will utilize a 62 -linear foot
culvert that will be removed after construction is complete. The temporary stream crossing is necessary
to access the southern portion of the site and construct the southern bridge abutments for the Rivergate
Parkway bridge and Walker Branch Drive bridge.
Restoration of Streams
All areas disturbed by the work shall be re -graded to leave the area in a smooth condition, sloped for
drainage. All impacted stream banks shall be stabilized with rip rap below the ordinary high water mark
and plantings above the high water mark. Any rip rap needed will be keyed into existing grades.
Stabilized stream banks shall include all bank areas disturbed by construction activities. Banks shall be
restored to their original contours. The stream banks shall be stabilized with biodegradable coir fiber
matting or other coconut fiber matting. Plantings shall consist of dormant native live stakes conforming
to the City of Charlotte or Mecklenburg County requirements, and shall be installed in the winter during
the period from November to March. The live stakes shall be planted so that buds point upward and
approximately 2 to 3 inches of wood is above the ground. At least three buds on each stake should be
installed below ground to encourage root growth. Live stake species should include silky dogwood, silky
willow, and elderberry only. The seeding and matting installation will occur immediately following
completed grading and live stakes will be installed if construction takes place during the appropriate
planting season. Otherwise, the live stakes will be installed during the next planting season.
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands have been limited to 0.0998 acre. No permanent impacts to
jurisdictional stream channels are proposed. Temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total
134 linear feet of stream channel and 0.0502 acre of jurisdictional wetland. As permanent impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands are less than one-tenth an acre, and no permanent stream impacts are proposed,
mitigation for the proposed impacts is not required.
On behalf of MPV Properties, 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. 12, 18, and 33.
Page 8 of 9

RiverGate Tract
Request for AJD and PCN Pursuant to NWP 12, 18, and 33
March 8, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-3940
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services on this important project. Please do not hesitate
to contact Gregg Antemann at 704-408-1683 or [e-mail] should you have any questions or
comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
} al OGREGG C� N i y'
&&"Aawt�
Kaitlin McCulloch, WPIT
Project Manager
Attachments: Figure l: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Site Location
Figure 3: Aerial Imagery
Figure 4: Current USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County
Figure 5: Jurisdictional Boundaries
Figure 6: Proposed Site Plan
Figure 7: Alternative Design 2
Figure 8: Proposed Impacts to Wetland CC at Rivergate Parkway Bridge
Figure 9: Proposed Impacts to RPW Stream A at Rivergate Parkway Bridge
Figure 10: Proposed Impacts to RPW Stream A at Walker Branch Drive Bridge
Agent Authorization Form
JD Request Form
Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 12, 18, and 33
Stream Classification Points (SCP 1-SCP2)
Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP 1-DP4)
Rapanos Forms
SHPO Response Letter
NCNHP Data Review Report
USFWS Response Letter
Page 9 of 9

C:\Users\mccul\Google Drive\2016\2016 Consulting\2016 Projects\2016-3940 RiverGate Tract\Permitting\ArcGIS\Figurel_Vicinity.=d

4 1 E 19 1` 1yt7 g i�
RJ
• \� Sp is r l � � �� �+ 4 q ��` I' .—_ * ,�._ ,,I
Corn
i cellntodc "1 r
/ `�• i ~ (\ * — . 1 625
- + '%X I
. �� 55Q y/ /.. `tit �L17 ? � - -' � --• � d -
S Tryon Street
°� �1
Athletic
Fleld
633
+` 1
88T
on
P16
JIJ ,l
Steele Creek Rd
`j y
• u� r �p
�:1411=aLlt'CiN •RO O - I'4 _ +�i '�� � _ � t � { 1 � • �f
v a �� -�• rte , = ,�;,�- � '�
'1� it •. t i. G--- ,..y _ ��. ', -S
A
LL Legend
Project Limits (42 ac.)
REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC USGS QUADRANGLES: b95 • �l 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
FORT MILL, SC -NC (1980) AND LAKE WYLIE, SC (1993).
SCALE: DATE:
1 inch = 2,000 feet 3/2/2017 USGS Site Location FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY /�
2016-3940 KM�+ p RiverGate Tract L
`APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Charlotte, North Carolina
GCA WETLAND SERVICES CWS Project No. 2016-3940
C:\Users\mccuEGoogle Drive\2016\2016 Comulting\2016 Projects\2016-3940 RiverGate Tract\Peemitting\ArcGIS\Figure2—USGS.mxd

C:\Users\mccul\Google Drive\2016\2016 Consulting\2016 Projects\2016-3940 RiverGate Tract\Permitting\ArcGIS\Figure3_Aerial.mxd

Table .. Pinpo:etl Impact• to f_itl_Site ..InriAictional Wile of the I
p P gone SEE FIGURES 8 AND 9 FOR -=`
Joristfictional
Impact NIA? Trm orae}i Figure 5t a $ U
Feattue \a. \0. TpeofLmpacr Perns1aent \p, Impact(Ifj mpaer(nc] t �f \ M v
S K
SI I' O eaT: - I IMPACTS W1—W5 AND S1—S3 N
S S2 12 Open T= „ N �w
.i beam 3 ,.• - - - Y
S= is Ct.l. ,- r.. S D_ ]: -_-•e' ^• P7 A
_yam - - ��..
T "rats, 10 _ - - _ - r-r� s.. - + J¢ � U
t'i � _�,,,_� v�~.'r,+t - '•x. .,, � �'"''19'Y6ly'€.� .n4' J � �.y�.` � - 6 cC U
�.
z (714
E Y ,� r 1 � r- -- �'- �.; � ! _ ` � Yr'�.. -- .•C'e '� •.� . - "� ,��`' A "�13.: \ ,� U 'z 4
a U
[� ,•�� .5� �4� fir'%'`^-:+�" •A` 1 `� '\. U 3
U 6 A
-
r /y ]� I
\ r a+--9"�,t` } lit. 1 1 t Fj`•
s
eek � I4, 1
00 7
SEE FIGURE 10 FOR IMPACT S4Ar
,
�'� • .
fY�9?y
•'`y' nasty-.'
fes' A ti
—�
", N� ° 1 i ' j` j/� i w� i i ✓ 4� 4 ! r v
- - -
r /I
�" ��.... �..wyrO bs P+'k''7y XiB.3Y �,�
x _
,
tr
1 " : 2000'
'A
Isolated Non -404 Jurisdictional Wetland BB
eG 0.14 acre to be filled r p� r� Legend
NO ISOLATED PERMIT REQUIRED
Project Limits (42 ac.)
- r 8RPW Stream
�h
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY y ®Forested Wetland
LAND DESIGN, DATED 2017. O Herbaceous Wetland
r
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE Isolated Wetland
DELINEATED (FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND
MAPPED USING A SUB -FOOT GPS UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON Roads
JULY 27, 2016. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WERE
FIELD -VERIFIED BY THE USACE ON NOVEMBER 10, 2016
(SAW -2016-02090). ADDITIONAL AREAS FOR WETLAND CC WERE
lab.�r'Slcol
DELINEATED BY CWS SCIENTISTS ON FEBRUARY 16, 2017 AND 200 a k 200 100 0 200 Feet
HAVF. NnT RF.FN VFRTFTFT) RV THF TTSAf F
FIGTJRE NO.
6
Total Stream Ins -acrt
134 If
0310 ac.
Jurudlcnonal
Fea nre
Impact 4}}-P
No, No.
Forested+
T3erhtace0ns
Tvi?e of Impact Temporary, Figure Impact (U) mpacr (a c)
Perruanimt No.
A I
15
Fere-;red
FLIT etmaaerlt a
=N A
J 06.10
W2 12 Forested Open Treacb Partuanent 8 N A
l h4ty Croasine
0 000
i'letitsud CG
W.
1;
forested d
4pea Trench
Fennaaeitt 5
CSp55
N A
0.0031
A"1
1_'
$erbateans
open French
Ternperan 5
L:tm Cr .:]na
1; {
0.0302
R"3
I5
Herbaceat:;
i1i Permauettt .c
ti A
0-0;10
r0ta1 Tent 0rat'ti' Stream IMPIt :
1341f
11-110 at.
Total Prtmatteat}}ed;mdI,tu 't t5:
NIA
0.0999.r.
_Total T_em oran•}}etLandIm ct,
'til►_
0,0502.1c.Taral
{\erland Iru icts:
Ni I
0 1+00 se,
rotai Impacts to Jnnsdicti0nal }} a Car- of the L S.:
1331E
0 , a ae,
t'i � _�,,,_� v�~.'r,+t - '•x. .,, � �'"''19'Y6ly'€.� .n4' J � �.y�.` � - 6 cC U
�.
z (714
E Y ,� r 1 � r- -- �'- �.; � ! _ ` � Yr'�.. -- .•C'e '� •.� . - "� ,��`' A "�13.: \ ,� U 'z 4
a U
[� ,•�� .5� �4� fir'%'`^-:+�" •A` 1 `� '\. U 3
U 6 A
-
r /y ]� I
\ r a+--9"�,t` } lit. 1 1 t Fj`•
s
eek � I4, 1
00 7
SEE FIGURE 10 FOR IMPACT S4Ar
,
�'� • .
fY�9?y
•'`y' nasty-.'
fes' A ti
—�
", N� ° 1 i ' j` j/� i w� i i ✓ 4� 4 ! r v
- - -
r /I
�" ��.... �..wyrO bs P+'k''7y XiB.3Y �,�
x _
,
tr
1 " : 2000'
'A
Isolated Non -404 Jurisdictional Wetland BB
eG 0.14 acre to be filled r p� r� Legend
NO ISOLATED PERMIT REQUIRED
Project Limits (42 ac.)
- r 8RPW Stream
�h
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY y ®Forested Wetland
LAND DESIGN, DATED 2017. O Herbaceous Wetland
r
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE Isolated Wetland
DELINEATED (FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND
MAPPED USING A SUB -FOOT GPS UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON Roads
JULY 27, 2016. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WERE
FIELD -VERIFIED BY THE USACE ON NOVEMBER 10, 2016
(SAW -2016-02090). ADDITIONAL AREAS FOR WETLAND CC WERE
lab.�r'Slcol
DELINEATED BY CWS SCIENTISTS ON FEBRUARY 16, 2017 AND 200 a k 200 100 0 200 Feet
HAVF. NnT RF.FN VFRTFTFT) RV THF TTSAf F
FIGTJRE NO.
6

IVERG)
,(PROPOS
E PAF
CDOT
\
I I EX. CREEK 1I�III
TOP OF BANK
V �I
EX. CREEK
BOTTOM OF
BANK I
MI'
I�
EX. CREEK
I TOP OF
III BANK
I II
III
■ EX. CREEK
II BOTTOM
' I OF BANK
II I \ I
PROP.
BRIDGE
ABUTTMENT
EX. 8" DIP SEWER TO BE
ABANDONED DOWSTREAM FROM
PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE
CW�Y
' R/W
\ PROP.BRIDGE
,
\ A�RUTTMENT III
I i
\\ III
\ ` III
\ PROP. BRIDGr
\ OVER STEELE
CREEK
\ I�
PROP. 8" DIP
SANITARY SEWER /
I
PROP. PERMANENT HERBACEOUS I
WETLAND DISTURBANCE:
APPROX. 1534 SF (0.04 AC) '
110h1l, E ///
EX. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (TYP)
PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE OVER
EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER
I PROP. 18" DIP SANITARY SEWER (TYP)
slI
\ PROP. 30" STEEL ENCASEMENT I
\ PROP. 30' CTL WATER SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (15' OFF CENTERLINE OF SEWER)
PROP. PERMANENT FORESTED PROP. 20' CTL WATER EASEMENT (10'
WETLAND DISTURBANCE: OFF CENTERLINE OF WATERLINE)
I APPROX. 5032 SF (0.12 AC)
I\ TOE OF PROP. 2:1 FILL SLOPE
EX. BOTTOM
OF SLOPE I
EX. TOP OF SLOPE PROP. 8"
sso ---- WATERLINE---
EX. 60' R/W
est -----
S9 M M M
EX. 8" DIP SANITARY SEWER
s� I I _ RIVERGATE PARKWAY
"'I
SS
I s9z PROP. '-6" C&G (TYP)
F.tf:: (EXISTING CDOT R/W)
I I I " EX. 2'-6" C&G (TYP)
V� PROP. 6' 593 EX. 6' SIDEWALK
SIDE ALK
- - --
y — -- '7EX. 60' R/W
PROPERTY f f f sss ,
PROP. CATCH BASIN (TYP)
BOUNDARY f PROP. 15" RCP STORM SEWER (TYP)
(TYP) f
f PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE OVER EX. 8" DIP SANITARY SEWER
f f f f f f f f E
CWS GIS LOCATED FORESTED WETLAND
f f f f f f PROP. RIP RAP APRON
f f f f TOE OF PROP. 2:1 FILL SLOPE
f f f EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER TO BE ABANDONED BETWEEN PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLES
EX. 25' CTL WATER SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT D.B. 6905, PG 268
_ PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE OVER EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER
CWS GIS LOCATED HERBACEOUS WETLAND
PROP. TEMPORARY HERBACEOUS WETLAND DISTURBANCE: SCALE: 1" — 30'
APPROX. 1799 SF (0.04 AC)
�TEELE CREEK MULTI -FAMILY
PERMANENT WETLAND DISTURBANCE
15' 0' 15' 30' 60'
TeruporaiT
Permanent
Telnporan
Ffaulr
Total Wetland
Pro -posed Design Plans
Stream Impacts
Wetland
Wetland
Via.
Impacts (ac.)
(if)
Impacts (1c.)
Impacts (ac.)
Lefna ne De -_,gal 1
N A
Jll— If
0.155 ac
D.D458 ac.
0.101 ac..
[-e.matl',-e De -.Lm 2
-
134 if
0.15 .ac.
D.D458 ac.
D. -'D1 ac..
Pr:3pt:e6 De=agr,Plal:
8-1D
134 if
I D.D998 ac.
I D.DAO_'ac.
D.150 ac.
EX. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (TYP)
PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE OVER
EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER
I PROP. 18" DIP SANITARY SEWER (TYP)
slI
\ PROP. 30" STEEL ENCASEMENT I
\ PROP. 30' CTL WATER SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (15' OFF CENTERLINE OF SEWER)
PROP. PERMANENT FORESTED PROP. 20' CTL WATER EASEMENT (10'
WETLAND DISTURBANCE: OFF CENTERLINE OF WATERLINE)
I APPROX. 5032 SF (0.12 AC)
I\ TOE OF PROP. 2:1 FILL SLOPE
EX. BOTTOM
OF SLOPE I
EX. TOP OF SLOPE PROP. 8"
sso ---- WATERLINE---
EX. 60' R/W
est -----
S9 M M M
EX. 8" DIP SANITARY SEWER
s� I I _ RIVERGATE PARKWAY
"'I
SS
I s9z PROP. '-6" C&G (TYP)
F.tf:: (EXISTING CDOT R/W)
I I I " EX. 2'-6" C&G (TYP)
V� PROP. 6' 593 EX. 6' SIDEWALK
SIDE ALK
- - --
y — -- '7EX. 60' R/W
PROPERTY f f f sss ,
PROP. CATCH BASIN (TYP)
BOUNDARY f PROP. 15" RCP STORM SEWER (TYP)
(TYP) f
f PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE OVER EX. 8" DIP SANITARY SEWER
f f f f f f f f E
CWS GIS LOCATED FORESTED WETLAND
f f f f f f PROP. RIP RAP APRON
f f f f TOE OF PROP. 2:1 FILL SLOPE
f f f EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER TO BE ABANDONED BETWEEN PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLES
EX. 25' CTL WATER SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT D.B. 6905, PG 268
_ PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE OVER EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER
CWS GIS LOCATED HERBACEOUS WETLAND
PROP. TEMPORARY HERBACEOUS WETLAND DISTURBANCE: SCALE: 1" — 30'
APPROX. 1799 SF (0.04 AC)
�TEELE CREEK MULTI -FAMILY
PERMANENT WETLAND DISTURBANCE
15' 0' 15' 30' 60'

I ' EX. CREEKilllll I l�� EX. CREEK EX. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK I TOP OF
BANK EX.. 18" RCP SANITARY TARY SEEROVER
I'I I
EX. CREEK
BOTTOM OF I III PROP. 18" DIP SANITARY SEWERTYP
BANK I SEWER(TYP) I
' I EX TOM CREEK \ PROP. 30" STEEL ENCASEMENT
OF BANK PROP. 30' CTL WATER SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (15' OFF CENTERLINE OF SEWER)
I�III � �
II I I PROP. PERMANENT FORESTED PROP. 20 CTL WATER EASEMENT (10,
I I I WETLAND DISTURBANCE: OFF CENTERLINE OF WATERLINE)
APPROX. 3013 SF (0.07 AC)
TOE OF PROP. 2:1 FILL SLOPE
I � I
W I I EX. BOTTOM
OF SLOPE
585 --- �---- --- ���
PROP. III I II I \ -58-61,Z�- — EX. TOP OF SLOPE "
PROP. 8
--1 _ BRIDGE ' I — 590)_- — WATERLINE
ABUTTMENT 592 — — — _ — EX. 60' R/W— — — — — — — —
583 9 _ -
EX. 8" DIP SEWER TO BE W
ABANDONED DOWSTREAM FROM EX. 8" DIP SANITARY SEWER
PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE
IVERG E PARKWAY _ %%�/ yg2 86 I II 592 RIVERGATE PARKWAY
_ _ ss
(PROPOS D CDOT Z R/W ��PROP. -6„ C&G (TYP) (EXISTING CDOT R/W)
1
592 EX. 2'-6" C&G (TYP)
V�
PROP. 6' 593
4 _ SIDE ALK EX. 6' SIDEWALK
---------------
�ry 592
yea EX. 60' R/W
\ PROP. I I FE f E ff f f 585 PROP. CATCH BASIN (TYP)
BRIDGE II PROPERTY f F F7
\ A�RUTTMENT II BOUNDARY f f f PROP. 15" RCP STORM SEWER (TYP)
(TYP) ff ffF PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE OVER EX. 8" DIP SANITARY SEWER
\ PROP. BRIDGE - J III F ff f f CWS GIS LOCATED FORESTED WETLAND
OVER STEELE N— f f f F
\ \ CREEK IIII Cif E F PROP. RIP RAP APRON
f f TOE OF PROP. 2:1 FILL SLOPE
\ F F
F EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER TO BE ABANDONED BETWEEN PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLES
PROP. 8" DIP III I I EX. 25' CTL WATER SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT D.B. 6905, PG 268
SANITARY SEWER / I PROP. DOGHOUSE MANHOLE OVER EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER
PROP. PERMANENT HERBACEOUS I I _ CWS GIS LOCATED HERBACEOUS WETLAND
WETLAND DISTURBANCE: PROP. TEMPORARY HERBACEOUS WETLAND DISTURBANCE:
APPROX. 1336 SF (0.03 AC) ' SCALE: 1 30'
APPROX. 2100 SF (0.05 AC) " =
d�,lilil� � ,��� i I
• 1-
STEELE CREEK MULTI -FAMILY
PERMANENT WETLAND DISTURBANCE
15' 0' 15' 30' 60'

Legend
— Avoided Stream
— Culvert (Temporary Stream Impact)
— Utility Line (Temporary Stream Impact)
Q Forested Wetland Boundary
0 Herbaceous Wetland Boundary
NWP 12
S1: RPW Stream A
Temporary Impact
Impact Type: Open Trench Utility Line
Impact: 20 linear feet
"Stream will be restored to original grade
EX`CREEK-
TOP OF BANK
III �
EX.CREEK
,OTTOM OF BANK
j
�1
C. 8" SANITARY SEWER
TO BE ABANDONED
IWNSTREAM OF PROPI
DOGHOUSE MANHOLIJ
PROP. TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
OVER STEELE CREEK PER CLDSM STD
30.14 (SEE DETAIL ON RIGHT)
S3: RPW Stream A ou
Temporary Impact
Impact Type: Culvert
Impact: 62 linear feet 7576- "Culvert to be removed after
construction and stream to be
restored to original grade
EX. CREEK
TOP OF BANK
I I \I I
EX. CREEK
BOTTOM OF BANK
sea
76/ / EX.�ANITARY—
�/ / SEWER
MANHOLE (TYP) /
I
5"TOE OF PROP. J I
TEMPORARY 2:
FILL SLOPE
PROP"— —�
ANITARY
SEWER
7A
PROP. SANITARY
SEWER
DOGHOUSE
MANHOLE OVER
EX. 18"
�I SANITARY
SEWER
IIII
l
■ ill
0
PROP. SANITARY SEWER DOGHOUSE
MANHOLE OVER EX. 18" SANITARY SEWER Forested Wetland CC
PROP. 18" DIP SANITARY SEWER (TYP) See Figure 8 for Impacts
:]
EX. 18" SANITARY SEWER TO BE
\ABANDONED BETWEEN PROP.
�OGHOUSE MANHOLES PRO CTL WATER SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (�
FF CENTERLINE OF SEWER) '--
PROP. 30" STEEL CASING
TOE OF PROP. T CRARY
2:1 FILL SLO PROP. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROP. 20' CTL WATER EASEMENT (10'
OFF CENTERLINE OF WATERLINE)
i
EX. 60' R/W PROP. 8" WATERLINE
W- W W W
EX. 8" DIP SANITARY SEWER
' 'ss RIVERGATE PARKWAY
Ss
o (EXISTING CDOT R/W)
a o 0 q \ EX. 2'-6"
C&G (TYP)
a — JtX. TOP OF SLOPE
- EX. 6' EX. 60' R/W
/Herbaceous Wetland CC SIDEWALK —
�— \ See Figure 8 for Impacts
NOTES
CWS GIS — —
1. REMOVETHE STRUCTURE WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED.
LOCATED EXCEED
\ �� X. BOTTOM (NOT TO EXCEED 1 YEAR).
FORESTED OF SLOPE
2. ASAMINIMUM, DESIGN THE STRUCTURE TO PASS YEAR
I CWS GIS
LOCATED
HERBACEOUS
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
EX. 18" RCP
SANITARY SEWER
r ,fir
n=n i n=nP
o
�� • • :�• T• r �•Y�Sr`
irk- •:. .
- _r_ - ►��■ate � �ti�•
\WL;IIIIP li �l RING 111 -TERAS REQUIRED BYINSPECTOR.
T ENGINEER TO SIZE PIPE (SEE NOTE 2)
NOT TO SCALE PROVIDE PIPE SIZE, INVERTS, SLOPE AND MATERIAL
FOR EACH CROSSING.
LmdDesiqp Proposed Impacts to RPW Stream A
at Rivergate Parkway Bridge
3/6/2017 SCALE: 1" = 30' 15' 0' 15' 30' 60'
PROP. 8" DIP
SANITARY
NWP 12
EWER (TYP)
S2: RPW Stream A
Temporary Impact
Impact Type: Open Trench Utility
Impact: 22 linear feet
`Stream will be restored to original grade
PROPERTY
DARY (TYP)
EX. CREEK
TOP OF BANK
I I \I I
EX. CREEK
BOTTOM OF BANK
sea
76/ / EX.�ANITARY—
�/ / SEWER
MANHOLE (TYP) /
I
5"TOE OF PROP. J I
TEMPORARY 2:
FILL SLOPE
PROP"— —�
ANITARY
SEWER
7A
PROP. SANITARY
SEWER
DOGHOUSE
MANHOLE OVER
EX. 18"
�I SANITARY
SEWER
IIII
l
■ ill
0
PROP. SANITARY SEWER DOGHOUSE
MANHOLE OVER EX. 18" SANITARY SEWER Forested Wetland CC
PROP. 18" DIP SANITARY SEWER (TYP) See Figure 8 for Impacts
:]
EX. 18" SANITARY SEWER TO BE
\ABANDONED BETWEEN PROP.
�OGHOUSE MANHOLES PRO CTL WATER SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (�
FF CENTERLINE OF SEWER) '--
PROP. 30" STEEL CASING
TOE OF PROP. T CRARY
2:1 FILL SLO PROP. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROP. 20' CTL WATER EASEMENT (10'
OFF CENTERLINE OF WATERLINE)
i
EX. 60' R/W PROP. 8" WATERLINE
W- W W W
EX. 8" DIP SANITARY SEWER
' 'ss RIVERGATE PARKWAY
Ss
o (EXISTING CDOT R/W)
a o 0 q \ EX. 2'-6"
C&G (TYP)
a — JtX. TOP OF SLOPE
- EX. 6' EX. 60' R/W
/Herbaceous Wetland CC SIDEWALK —
�— \ See Figure 8 for Impacts
NOTES
CWS GIS — —
1. REMOVETHE STRUCTURE WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED.
LOCATED EXCEED
\ �� X. BOTTOM (NOT TO EXCEED 1 YEAR).
FORESTED OF SLOPE
2. ASAMINIMUM, DESIGN THE STRUCTURE TO PASS YEAR
I CWS GIS
LOCATED
HERBACEOUS
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
EX. 18" RCP
SANITARY SEWER
r ,fir
n=n i n=nP
o
�� • • :�• T• r �•Y�Sr`
irk- •:. .
- _r_ - ►��■ate � �ti�•
\WL;IIIIP li �l RING 111 -TERAS REQUIRED BYINSPECTOR.
T ENGINEER TO SIZE PIPE (SEE NOTE 2)
NOT TO SCALE PROVIDE PIPE SIZE, INVERTS, SLOPE AND MATERIAL
FOR EACH CROSSING.
LmdDesiqp Proposed Impacts to RPW Stream A
at Rivergate Parkway Bridge
3/6/2017 SCALE: 1" = 30' 15' 0' 15' 30' 60'

Legend PROP.PROP. SANITARY SEWER DOGHOUSE
Avoided Stream PE .A \ MANHOLE OVER EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER
� � \
Utility Line (Temporary Stream Impact) \ \ \ �EX. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (TYP)
Permanent 30' Utility Easement
\ \ \ �� PROP. 18" DIP SANITARY SEWER
PROP. PROP.
RPW Stream B BRIDGE \ \ \ \ III I I I I ,III BRIDGE
No Impact
ABUTMENT PROP. 30" STEEL CASING PIPE
/ \ \\\ � �I � Li
T II I I III Il,li �i 11111 594 595
600 ,\C\�T� V 1 tll i. �I 600 601
n _
�0 Ek BRA H DRIVE
PROP. \ �V I XISTING C T R/W)
2._6., C&G
-666
\ PROP. BRIDGE V �\ ��� soo PROP. CATCH BASIN (TYP)
sss II
OVER STEELE
��\ fva 5 sss PROP. 15" RCP STORM PIPE (TYP)
I
TOE OF
OP.
1 SLOPE 2: \ � PROPERTY
\ BOLI Df�RY PROP. RIP RAP APRON
EX. 18" RCP SANITARY SEWER TO BE
\\ ABANDONED BETWEEN DOGHOUSE MANHOLES
EX. 25'CTL WAER SANITARY
I NWP12 \\ \\ \\\ \� EASEMENT DBT605,PG268SEWER
I
S4: RPW Stream A \ \ \ \
Temporary Impact / • PROP. SANITARY SEWER
\ �\
\\ DOGHOUSE MANHOLE OVER EX.Im act Type: Open Trench UtilityLine
P SANITARY SEWER
Impact: 30 linear feet PROP. SANITARY
/ 'Stream will be restored to original grade WER MANHOLE (TYP)
\ /• 30' PERMANENT SEWER
EASEMENT (15- EACH
/ SIDE OF SEWERLINE) SCALE: 1" = 30'
LmdDesiqp Proposed Impacts to RPW Stream A
at Walker Branch Drive Bridge
3/6/2017 15' 0' 15' 30' 60'

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified
herein, do authorize representative of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to ender upon the property herein described for the purpose of
conducting on-site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of
the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
I, Mr. Bailey Partick, representing MPV Properties, 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 1 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.
ApplicanNi signature
A /AV
Date
ZT-a- c, ���
Agent's signature
9-21-2016
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

urisdictional Determination Request
aoft E 0-r
v V10a
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Almy Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as dscribed within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
to the appropriate Corps Field Office (or project manager, if known) via mail, electronic mail, or
facsimile. A cu °ent list of county assignments by Field Office and project manager can be
found on-line at:: /www.saw.0 ce.arm .mil/Missions/Re 1 yPerindPr .as x , by
telephoning: 910 251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Etpgineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
a
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REG1.1L�TORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade brave, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
l wr mir + 1'., ^r -:-.i -.i 1.' I
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number. [phone]
Fax Number- [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number [phone]
1

[urisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL` INFORMATION
® Property Information
Address: southeast of the South Tryon Street—Steele Creek Road intersection in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
County: Mecklenburg County
Directions: at the South Tryon Street—Steele Creek Road intersection turn south on
i Steele Creek Road. Follow Steele Creek Road for 0.2 miles and then
take a left onto Walker Branch Road and follow it until it deadends
Parcel Index Number (PIN) 21906117 and existing sewerline easement
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
® Name. I Gregg Antemann, PWS; Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
Mailing Address: 550 E. Westinghouse Blvd., Charlotte, NC. 28273
Telephone Number. 704-408-1683
Electronic Mail Address' [e-mail]
I.
Select ond.,
❑ I am the current property owner.
® i am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant2
❑ interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
® Name: i Partnership Steele Creek (1997) limited; POC: Sarah Belk Gambrell
Mailing Address: 6100 Fairview Road, Ste 640, Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone Number. 76H - 3 q 3 - L4 315
Electronic Mail Address': Chrril . iinorna5 @ �Ury&s k(vf1, (on
® Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GISIParcel/Tax Record data)
1 If available I
s Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
a If available

urisdictionai Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION4
1, the undersigned,' a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under
Section 444 of the 'Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Property OrIer Signature & Date
II
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One. I
1 am requesting that the Corps provide a prefimin JD for the property identified herein.
® I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or
absence ofWoUS' and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This
request dots NOT include.a request for a verified delineation. (proceed to F and G
below). {
{
❑ ' I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property/project
area and provide an approved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
❑ I am requeipting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) �n a property/project area and provide an approved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCOOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
s Waters of the United States

1 Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. ALL REQUESTS
i
® Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
® Size of Property or Project Area: 42 acres
i
® I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
G. JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
I
(1) Preliminatyy JD Requests:
e
❑ Completed and signed Preliminar�sdiclional Determination Forms.
i
❑ PrWect Coordinates: Latitude: Longitude:
Maps (noilarger than 11x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑ Atrial Photography of the prosect area
❑ USGS Topographic Map
❑ Sail Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plii, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Delineatim Information (when applicable):
I
Wetlands: Tributaries:
❑
Wetland Data Sheets'
❑
Upland Data Sheets
❑
I
Landscape Photos, if taken
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
❑ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
I
❑ Fifield Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes -
All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
Locations of photo stations
Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
6 See Appendix A of This Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 2G, 2008
Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
5

urisdictional Determination Request
(2) Approved I JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
® Prbiect Coordinates: Latitude: 35.097872° Longitude: -80.9856071
i
Maps (no',larger than l 1x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
I
® Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
® Aerial Photography of the project area
® USGS Topographic Map
® S 4 Survey Map
® Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
P] previous delineation maps)
Delineation Information (when applicable):
{
Wetlands; Tributaries:
® Wptland Data Sheets' ❑ USACE Assessment Forms
® Upland Data Sheets ED Other Assessment Forms
i(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
1
® Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
Locations of photo stations
Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
® Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms) (also known as "Rapanos
Forms)")
® Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters
Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.

I.
Jurisdictional Determination
FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review. f
Due to stoage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard-
copy submittals include at least one original Plat (to scale) that is no larger than 11"x17"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11"x17", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed. The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Docurnenj Format (PDI~) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and feturn them via e-mail to the requestor.
Plats submitted for approval must.
❑ bei sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
E]beto scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
I
❑ be' legible
I
❑ include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property Information
❑ in�lude a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings/metes and
b(6ds/GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
I
[] ci�arly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
J
❑ clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
❑ when wetlands are depicted -
*include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
*identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
❑ when tributaries are depicted;
i
*include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water Marks
(OHWM) of tributary
*include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using
approximate widths or surveyed OHWM)
*include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"

Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project/property boundaries
i
❑ include the location of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
I
❑ include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently subject to
th4 requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands", "non jurisdictional
waters"). NOTE: An approved JD must be conducted in order to make an official
Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not jurisdictional,
❑
include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc ) that transport
woos
TION LANGUAGE
the following Corps Certification language:
'This certifies that this copy of this plot accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction
of Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct as determined by the undersigned on this date.
Unless there is a change in the lain or our published regulations, the determination of
i
Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from
this date: The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional
Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.'
Regulatory Official:
Title.-
Date:
itle.
Date:
USACEAction ID Na.:

jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ When uplands may bepresent within a depicted Jurisdictional Boundar.
idclude the following Corps Certification language:
9
a
"This cer�ifies that this copy of this plat identifies all areas of waters of the United States
regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the law or our published regulations,
this detefmination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five year* from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the
appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Aellneotlan Manual."
Regular Holy Oficial.
Title:
Date:
USA CE) ction lD No..
GPS SURVEYS
For Surveys prepared using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the Survey must include
all of the above, as well as.
i
❑ be at sub -meter accuracy at each survey point.
❑ include an accuracy verification:
One or more known points (property corner, monument) shall be located with the
GPS and cross-referenced with the existing traditional property survey (metes and
bounds).
❑ include a brief description of the GPS equipment utilized.
9

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑x Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12, 18, 33 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes x❑ No
1d.
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 ❑x 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 1h
below.
❑ Yes x❑
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
RiverGate Tract
2b. County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
Rivergate
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Partnership Steele Creek (1997) Limited; POC: Sarah Belk Gambrell
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
09064-072
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
6100 Fairview Road, Ste 640, Charlotte, NC 28210
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑x Other, specify: Client
4b. Name:
Mr. Bailey Patrick
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
MPV Properties
4d. Street address:
521 E. Morehead St., Ste 400, Charlotte, NC 28202
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202
4f. Telephone no.:
[phone]
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
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 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
21906117
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.097872° Longitude: -80.985607°
1 c. Property size:
42 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
UT to Walker Branch
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Catawba (HUC# 03050103)
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 area consists of an undeveloped forested area (Figure 3, attached). Typical on-site vegetation consists of American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), Carolina shagbark hickory (Carya carolinae-septentrionalis),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), hackberry
(Celtis occidentalis), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), red
maple (Acerrubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), white oak (Quercus alba), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), winged elm (Ulmus a/ata), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Nepalese
browntop (Microstegium vimineum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and
various grasses (Festuca spp.).
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.202 acre of jurisdictional wetland area
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 3,518 linear feet of
perennial stream channel
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to develop the property into a multi -family residential development in Charlotte, North Carolina
(Figure 6, attached). This project will provide residential housing to meet the growth and demand of an area of Mecklenburg
County that is experiencing significant population growth due to its proximity to downtown Charlotte, North Carolina and Fort
Mill, South Carolina. This property is in a prime location based on its proximity to Interstate 77. The property is also located
three miles from McDowell Nature Preserve on Lake Wylie which provides scenic trails, fishing docks, and boat/kayak access
ramps to Lake Wylie.
This project is not a phased project and adjoining subdivisions are all owned by individuals and/or companies not associated
with this subdivision.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 12, 18, and 33, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with
this project are limited to a total of 0.0998 acre of jurisdictional wetland (Wetland CC) and are due to maintained utility
easements and fill for a bridge abutment. No permanent impacts to jurisdictional stream channels are proposed. Figure 6
(attached) depicts the proposed subdivision layout overview and proposed impacts are summarized in Table 3 (see cover
letter) and on Figure 8-10 (attached).
(Continued on next page)
Page 3 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

Nationwide Permit No. 12: Impact Nos S1, S2, S4, W2, W3, and W4
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 12, unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of a waterline and sewerline
include the mechanized clearing of forested and herbaceous wetland vegetation and jurisdictional stream crossings (Figures 8-
10, attached). Permanent impacts will be the result of a 30 -foot wide permanently maintained easement for a sewerline and
20 -foot wide permanently maintained easement for a waterline, in which forested Wetland CC will be cleared, converted, and
maintained as a herbaceous wetland. Temporary impacts will be the result of a 30 -foot sewerline permanent easement
through herbaceous Wetland CC, two stream crossings, and a 20 -foot waterline permanent easement at one stream crossing.
Sewerlines and waterlines will be installed via open trench methods.
Stream Impacts: S1, S2, and S4
All proposed stream impacts will be temporary (Figures 9-10, attached). Temporary stream crossings will be returned to their
original grade and stabilized using bioengineering and replanted with native hardwood trees and shrubs. No riprap will be
placed in the stream bed. The number of crossings has been kept to the minimum necessary. The utility crossings will not
result in any loss of waters of the U.S.
Temporary Impacts to RPW Stream A total 72 linear feet and are the result of one waterline crossing and two sewerline
crossings. The 20 -foot waterline permanent easement will result in 20 linear feet of temporary impact to RPW Stream A
(Figure 9, attached [S1]). The two 30 -foot sewerline crossings will result in 52 linear feet of temporary impacts to RPW Stream
A (Figures 9 and 10, attached [S2 and S4]). The permanent easement for the sewerline at impact S2 overlaps with the
temporary access road by eight linear feet. Therefore, in order to avoid double counting impacts, the 30 -foot permanent
easement will only result in 22 linear feet of impact to RPW Stream A, hence the 52 linear -foot total sewerline impacts.
Wetland Impacts: W2, W3, W4
Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands total approximately 0.0502 acre. Permanent impacts are the result of clearing
forested Wetland CC to facilitate the construction of the proposed sewerline and waterline (Figure 8, attached). Temporary
impacts are the result of the proposed sewerline through an existing sewerline easement and herbaceous Wetland CC (Figure
8, attached).
A proposed 20 -foot waterline permanent easement through forested Wetland CC will result in 0.007 acre of permanent impacts
to forested Wetland CC through clearing (Figure 8, attached [W2]). A proposed 30 -foot sewerline permanent easement will
result in 0.0041 acre of permanent impacts to forested Wetland CC through clearing and 0.0502 acre of temporary impacts to
herbaceous Wetland CC (Figure 8, attached [W3 -W4, respectively]).
Nationwide Permit No. 18: Impact Nos. W1 and W5
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 18, unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of the Rivergate Parkway bridge
abutment includes 0.0950 acre of jurisdictional wetland (Figure 8, attached). The proposed bridge abutment will result in
0.0640 acre of fill to forested Wetland CC and 0.0310 acre of fill to herbaceous Wetland CC (W 1 and W5, respectively). As
Wetland CC is located at the end of the Rivergate Parkway existing stub road, there was no alternative location for the bridge
abutment. The Rivergate Parkway bridge and Walker Branch Drive bridge will span the existing on-site streams and result in
no permanent impacts to on-site streams.
Nationwide Permit No. 33: Impact No. S3
Under Nationwide Permit No. 33, unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of the RiverGate subdivision will be the
result of 62 linear feet of temporary stream impacts for a temporary stream crossing (Figure 9, attached [S3]). The proposed
temporary stream crossing will utilize a 62 -linear foot culvert that will be removed after construction is complete. The temporary
stream crossing is necessary to access the southern portion of the site and construct the southern bridge abutments for the
Rivergate Parkway bridge and Walker Branch Drive bridge.
Restoration of Streams
All areas disturbed by the work shall be re -graded to leave the area in a smooth condition, sloped for drainage. All impacted
stream banks shall be stabilized with rip rap below the ordinary high water mark and plantings above the high water mark. Any
rip rap needed will be keyed into existing grades. Stabilized stream banks shall include all bank areas disturbed by
construction activities. Banks shall be restored to their original contours. The stream banks shall be stabilized with
biodegradable coir fiber matting or other coconut fiber matting. Plantings shall consist of dormant native live stakes conforming
to the City of Charlotte or Mecklenburg County requirements, and shall be installed in the winter during the period from
November to March. The live stakes shall be planted so that buds point upward and approximately 2 to 3 inches of wood is
above the ground. At least three buds on each stake should be installed below ground to encourage root growth. Live stake
species should include silky dogwood, silky willow, and elderberry only. The seeding and matting installation will occur
immediately following completed grading and live stakes will be installed if construction takes place during the appropriate
planting season. Otherwise, the live stakes will be installed during the next planting season.
Page 4 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 20(

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Z Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: 2016-02090
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ PreliminaryZ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Carolina Wetland Services
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
On July 27, 2016, CWS scientists Kaitlin McCulloch, Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) and Michelle LaForge, Project
Scientist, delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the project area (Figure 4, attached). A request
for an approved jurisdictional determination was submitted to the USACE on October 11, 2016 (SAW -2016-02090). On -Site
jurisdictional features were field -verified by Mr. David Shaeffer of the USACE on November 10, 2016.
A review of the site plan in February 2017, revealed additional areas that were outside the original project limits located at both
the Walker Branch Drive and Rivergate Parkway stub roads. On February 16, 2017, CWS scientists Caleb Sullivan, Staff
Scientist I, and Dan Zurlo, Staff Scientist I, field reviewed and delineated the additional areas. The original Wetland CC (0.06
acre [located at the stub road of Rivergate Parkway]) was expanded and separated into herbaceous and forested areas. The
expanded boundary of Wetland CC has not been verified by the USACE, and therefore, CWS is submitting a new
request for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (JD Request form, attached). Wetland Determination Data Forms
representative of forested and herbaceous Wetland CC are attached as DP1 and DP2, respectively. A Wetland Determination
Data From representative of an upland area adjacent to Wetland CC is attached as DP3. Figure 4 (attached) depicts the
location of the on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. On-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total approximately 0.902 acre of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including 3,518 linear feet of stream channel (Table 1, see cover letter).
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes Z No Z Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes Z No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 5 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑x Wetlands ® Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f. Area
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
of
number
wetland
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporar T
W1
P
Fill
Floodplain Pool
Yes
Corps
0.0640
W2
P
Open Trench Utility Crossing
Floodplain Pool
Yes
Corps
0.0007
W3
P
Open Trench Utility Crossing
Floodplain Pool
Yes
Corps
0.0041
W4
T
Open Trench Utility Crossing
Floodplain Pool
No
Corps
0.0502
W5
P
Fill
Floodplain Pool
No
Corps
0.0310
W6
_
Choose One
Choose One
Yes/No
-
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.1500 ac.
2h. Comments: Permanent impacts to Wetlands total 0.0998 acre which is less than 0.1 acre and are the result of fill
and
converting forested wetland to a permanently maintained easement. Temporary impacts to wetlands total 0.0502 acre and are
the result of maintained easement through herbaceous wetlands.
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 Average
Impact
number (PER) or jurisdicti stream
length
Permanent (P) or intermittent on width
(linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? (feet)
feet)
S1 T Open Trench Utility Crossing Stream A PER Corps 10
20
S2 T Open Trench Utility Crossing Stream A PER Corps 10
22
S3 T Temporary Culvert Stream A PER Corps 10
62
S4 T Open Trench Utility Crossing Stream A PER Corps 10
30
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
134 If
3i. Comments: No permanent impacts to streams are proposed. Temporary impacts to streams total 134 linear feet of
temporary impacts to RPW streams and are the result of open trench utility crossings. Stream banks will be restored to original
contours.
Page 6 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then 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
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
type
Temporary (T)
01
_
Choose One
Choose
02
-
Choose One
Choose
03
_
Choose One
Choose
04
_
Choose One
Choose
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.
Pond ID number
Proposed use or
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
purpose of pond
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose One
P2
Choose One
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer Impact
Reason for impact
Stream name
Buffer
Zone 1
Zone 2
number-
mitigation
impact
impact
Permanent (P) or
required?
(square
(square
Temporar T
feet)
feet
B1
_
Yes/No
B2
_
Yes/No
B3
_
Yes/No
B4
-
Yes/No
B5
_
Yes/No
B6
_
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 14
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

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.
Temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters have been limited to 134 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel and 0.0502 acre
of jurisdictional wetland. Permanent impacts to wetlands have been limited to 0.0998 acre of jurisdictional wetland. No
permanent impacts to jurisdictional streams are proposed.
Alternatives Analysis
No Build Alternative
In an attempt to minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters while still meeting the goals of the project, a "No Build" alternative was
considered. The property is being purchased for the purpose of providing residential housing to meet the growth and demand
of an area in Mecklenburg County experiencing significant population growth. A "No Build" option would not meet the project
goals of providing necessary housing to meet the current demand. Therefore, the No Build Alternative was eliminated from
further consideration.
Alternative Design 1
Alternative Design 1 proposed placing culverts within the unnamed perennial tributary (Stream A) to Walkers Branch. Impacts
under this design would have easily exceeded 300 linear feet, triggered a Section 404 Individual Permit, and resulted in the
degradation of downstream waters. Additionally, modelling and subsequent reshaping of the adjacent 100 -year Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain would have required extensive above -grade fills within the floodplain and a
lengthy review process.
Alternative Design 2
Alternative Design 2 would result in the same amount of temporary impacts to streams, but more permanent impacts to
Wetland CC. The Rivergate Parkway bridge and associated fill, riprap apron, water utility line, and sewerline, would result in
permanent impacts to Wetland CC totalling 0.155 acre (Figure 7, attached [Table 2, below]). This would result in mitigation for
the proposed design. However, as the waterline, sewerline, and rip rap apron were all able to be redesigned to reduce impacts
to Wetland CC, this site design was rejected.
Proposed Design Plan
The proposed site plan has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. wherever
practicable through the use of large bridges. The Walker Branch Drive and Rivergate Parkway bridges are unavoidable in
order to provide adequate emergency access for ingress and egress and have been designed to span and avoid impacts to the
on-site streams. However, the location of Wetland CC (located at the end of the Rivergate Parkway stub road) is the only
logical, feasible location for the Rivergate Parkway bridge abutment. Therefore, permanent impacts to Wetland CC for the
bridge abutment were unavoidable in order to create the span bridge across RPW Stream A at the Rivergate Parkway crossing
(Figures 8, attached).
In order to construct the bridges, a temporary stream crossing will be installed to access the southern side of RPW Stream A.
This temporary stream crossing will be placed in the same footprint at the proposed bridge and will avoid additional impacts to
Wetland CC. The temporary stream crossing will utilize rip rap, washed stone, and a 62 -linear foot culvert. All materials will be
removed after construction is complete and the stream will be restored to pre -construction contours.
As the two proposed bridges and proposed impacts occur within a Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Floodplain
(FEMA Firm No. 3710440900K), LandDesign, the engineer for the site, has been coordinating with Mecklenburg County
concerning the design. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be submitted to the floodplain administrator for
Mecklenburg County for review.
In addition, in early February, stormwater and erosion control plans were submitted to the City of Charlotte, as part of the Land
Development review submission. LandDesign is currently waiting to receive comments from the City of Charlotte regarding the
submitted plans.
This project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid all other impacts wherever possible. No permanent impacts to jurisdictional
streams are proposed. We believe that the current site plan is the best possible plan that meets the project goals while avoiding
mpacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent practicable.
Page 8 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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. 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 Permits 12, 18, and 33 and Water Quality
Certificate Nos. 3884, 3890, and 3893. All work will be constructed in the dry.
To comply with City of Charlotte requirements, additional sewerlines and waterlines will need to be constructed to provide the
development with these utilities. Per the City of Charlotte, the sewerline will have a 30 -foot permanently maintained easement
and the waterline will have a 20 -foot permanently maintained easement through wetlands and at stream crossings. The stream
crossings have been limited to two sewerline stream crossings (one at Walker Branch Drive and one at Rivergate Parkway)
and one waterline stream crossing (at Rivergate Parkway). All areas disturbed by the work shall be re -graded to leave the area
in a smooth condition, sloped for drainage. All impacted stream banks shall be stabilized with riprap below the ordinary high
water mark and native plantings will be installed above the ordinary high water mark. These plantings will include native live
stake species. CWS is currently working with the design engineer (LandDesign) to develop a buffer restoration plan and
specifications for these temporary impacts.
This project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid all other impacts wherever possible. No permanent impacts to jurisdictional
streams are proposed. 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.
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 ❑x 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
project?
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
Type: Choose One
Quantity:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose One
Quantity:
Quantity:
Type: Choose One
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:
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose One
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
Page 9 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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 ❑x 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 10 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes M No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
80
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
In early February, stormwater and erosion control plans were submitted to the City of Charlotte,
as part of the Land
Development review submission. LandDesign is currently waiting to receive comments from the City of Charlotte regarding the
submitted plans.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
City of Charlotte
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte
© Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply):
❑ USMP
❑ 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
El HQWEl
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
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?
❑x Yes ❑ No
Page 11 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ 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
0 No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
x❑ No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
x❑ No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® 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.
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.
The proposed project will install new sewerlines that will be used for the subdivision.
Page 12 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑x No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
0 Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
CWS scientists performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on
December 27, 2016 to determine the presence of any federally -listed, candidate endangered, threatened species, or
critical habitat located within the project area. Based on the NCNHP review, there are no records of federally -protected
species within the project limits or within a mile of the project site. A copy of the NCNHP report is attached.
In addition, a letter requesting concurrence was sent the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) on January 18,
2017. A response letter dated February 15, 2017 from the USFWS states that there is suitable habitat for the northern
long-eared bat (NLEB [Myotis septentrionalis]), however the project will "occur at a location where any incidental take that
may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule." In addition, the USFWS concurs that no other
federally -protected species will be affected by the proposed project. A copy of the USFWS response letter is attached.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes 0 No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.htmi
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 0 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 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on December 28, 2016 to determine
the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project.
CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service, the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission online
database, and the Mecklenburg County Polaris 3G historical mapping program and found no historical structures, buildings,
sites, or districts within the project limits. A response letter from the SHPO dated January 24, 2017 states "We have
conducted a review of the project area and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project.
Therefore, we have no comment on project as proposed." A copy of the SHPO response letter is attached.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
0 Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: As the two proposed bridges and proposed impacts occur within a
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Floodplain (FEMA Firm No. 3710440900K), LandDesign, the engineer for the
site, has been coordinating with Mecklenburg County concerning the design. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
will be submitted to the floodplain administrator for Mecklenburg County for review.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Firm No. 3710440900K
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

Mr. Gregg Antemann 3.8.17
Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name signature is valid only if an authorization letter Date
from the applicant is provided.)
Page 14 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

NTC D'W© Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: '�' -tT , j
ProjectlSite: 'R vvu G�'� - �
Latitude: , {t
!
Evaluator: �n -4 V--3-N\County:
N1v-e-Y) b Wj j
Longitude: -, v '�kb
Total Points:
is at encs[
StrIf;! 1) �
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent '
Cather S`}Te-MM
l If? 3ltterat
19tt
ff� t9 or erennrel if=r 3(1"
erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor nolo Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
[U
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -poo),
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
0
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
n3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
d >
2
3
8, Headcuts
0
12t
3
9. Grade control
00
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
U1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
3 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = I :� ,5)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
C)
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
2
[a]
14. Leaf litter
IS5 1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
1
2
16. Organic debris lines or plies
0 1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soll-based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
0.5
yes;U3')
C. Bivlorav (Subtotal= t � l
18. Fibrous roots in strearnbed
3
2
1 0
19. Rooted upland plants In streambed
0
2
1 0
20. Macrobenthos (mote diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1 1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1.
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; DBL =1.5
Other GO
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Versinn 4.11
Date. -7 - 7_7 , i �a
Projeet/Slte: 11
Latitude,
Evaluator: Nkl\j1i._ + % iVl
County:, k-�iVll-cs
Longitude: r
Total Points:
Stream is at least Intermittent
If 19
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent erennla
Other `3h-e_&yY7
e.g. Quad Name: 'CCP
or erennialif?30"
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
l ,5 1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
2
3
3. In -channel structure:. ex.. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1f
Yes Z;�J
3
4, Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0's
0,5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1 1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
I >
2
3
9. Grade control
0
i5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0)
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a
No
0 ?
Yes =3
Sketch:
arundai oi[cnas are not rarea; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2r3`
1 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
2
S
14. leaf litter
l ,5 1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
0 1 0.5
1
1
1.5`
17, Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes Z;�J
3
U. t sioioav t tiutatotal = I •-4, 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3 j
2
1 1
0
19. mooted upland plants In streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos mote diversity and abundance}
0
1
'12-
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
r0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
'f.5�
2.3. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0,5
1
25, Algae
0
n
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
LOBI = 1.5 Other Co
`perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region �] / f
Project/Site: ��t $ Citylcounty: r l ln{ Sampling Date: of �D !! 7 .
Applicant/Owner: DP WET CC
( State: C, Sampling Point:_ FORESTED
Investigator(s): G Section, Township, Range: - f- b fry
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): VLocal �ryelief (concave, convex, none): CgJCItVja slope (1): s _
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 4A i Lat: 3 0(2 l q _1 Long: to I r kr �Daatum: 11M.
Soil Map Unit Name: Monocan loam, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: IV rf
14
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes,_ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes '� No
Remarks: egg s
.SL� J/ yL ; a i - c - -.. P 4-.
V
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
^ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
— Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6).
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
J( Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes k No -
Depth (inches):_ 0-2" _
Saturation Present? Yes .,V No
Depth (inches):,,._ 0" �
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes–IL No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
i" + �vyi
+ t°�'�8tF d �j�-.,i{{9^
T
t,[,f1
r`\
�l�F'
..• z't
3 _.�
1 ,, dl 1,<-� Rrti. i ,,..
a".'� - �}r ] • �
p✓ a-.
a.Y
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

7
Prevalence index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
DPI WET CC
VEGETATION (Four Strata) -- Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:.
FORESTED
x1 =
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
si (Plot size. )
bA(
°/Dover Species? ] attus
Number of Dominant Species
7
1._(_iCAla t a CY1'v -, 1(1Ve ia0t
1 I: !''
That Are DBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2.A rr
UP species
Column Totals:
�
Total Number of Dominant
7
3.1i1AMt Ck_'e )A] q& f_�
�
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
� t{�i
4.
2.l �t fm-eA J'Apan'f(A
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A113)
7
Prevalence index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
- Total Cover
OBL species
x1 =
_
50 % of total cover: 20% of totat cover:
Sa inglShrub Stratum, (Plat slze: / � )
FACW species
X2-
2=1
1 rol t
3 1; _V
FAC species
FACU species
x 3 -
x4-
2.Ci[ 3)hiA- 5 GG,fo heir i1 !n
3. i' " i Vt i
Total Cover
50% of total cover: V
S20% of total cover; V
UP species
Column Totals:
x h =
(A) T (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index - B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
S.
A 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
Total Cover
50% of total cover: V
S20% of total cover; V
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
) a
a separate sheet)
ir- IT
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.Al VX,nom v-rr,.,t►)fvtrr\...._
� t{�i
2.l �t fm-eA J'Apan'f(A
^I
r
3
'Indicators of hydric sol] and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. .
4.
-
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree -- Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
6.-
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7•
height,
8,
9-
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10,
m) tall.
11' Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regarytless
Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall
50% of total cover:
20°f° of total cover:_
Woody vine- All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
So �Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: � ) height.
3.
4• Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
Lj_D =Total Cover Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: '1 20°% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
o'-0/ a rn 1 Vf' eeUton i- t5 F4& cxC'w
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
DPI WET CC
Sampling Point: FORESTED
Profile Description; (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
inches Color (moist) %
Calor (moist) % Type, Loc2
Texture Remarks
CJ t I Y9 s/1 IQt�
�f
wy 5t, �®
f OM as p
7, loo
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains,
Location: PL=Pore Lining, M Matrix,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
J Histosol (Al)
T park Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 14 7)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
u Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodpialn Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
T Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
FHydri':oil
Depth (inches):
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
!f 6 f P ®f7 f
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -- Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
/
Project/Site: �I VF ! / City/County: I'f�fli`'#E f �'2'it',)y of nI Sampling Date:
ApplicandOwner: State: v Sampling Point:' DP2 WET CC
{{gg HERBACEOUS
Investigator(s): 1' `- Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): 1t!` Local relief (concave, convex, none): p 1Yi: en VGA. Slope (%): t {y
Subregion (LRR or MLRA�: M � Lat: 3 , [('� �� �° T Lonq: —Ka i K1 -i' � fl Datum: /, 9T
Soil Map Unit Name: — Monocan loam, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: �1
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z— No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation, Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _X Na
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes '�< No within a Wetland? Yes. N, No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes \ No
Remarks: g
�4����,g��
! � IT 7-,"C/ d J-� 6:1 dl -I 4': 0 'Y rt F
HYUKULUUY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required;
check all „that , apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iran Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Crayfish Burrows (CB)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Y Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aqui€ard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (134)
s Aquatic Fauna (1313)
1� FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):_ 6-8"
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):_ 0" _
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
f C
�q ��
Jy, 7 tP c . r6"
aF lJ ,
9
t
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) -- Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1.
3
4
5
% Cover Species? Status
7,
Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:__. iJ )
FAC
2.
9.
�7 r 15 = Total Cover
A 50% of total cover: 1 J 20% of total cover: 3
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.�}I:Ff� i'`Ei► ifivy�i�ltt s3vr M_ / �y
2,1 )S � ✓
4.
10,
94 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: _ 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: , )
1.
4.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20%0 of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbefs here or on a separate sheet.)
of JM -)#1 Fltocwelk,�-
DP2 WET CC
H
Sampling Pointer.ERBACEOUS
Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: a (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
— Multiply by
OBL species
x1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 -
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
�T (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 it (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Englneers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Calor (moist) %
Color moist
% Tyoe Lac
Texture
1dY��l_._
Y 5 r
�C�
SiCt
o1
aU
sI
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) .
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed),-
Type:
bserved);
Type:
Depth (inches):
DP2 WET CC
Sampling Point: HERBACEOUS
Remarks
RM -Reduced Matrix, IVIS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Mat€ix.
Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
G igtr �� felc1 t 'f '
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Sails (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
_ Other (Lxplain in Remarks)
3indicato€s of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes A No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and piedmont Region
Prr��sctlslFe; {i se x dirt -lc_ rkk+ GitylCounty; !t� r_rCtn{rte Sampling pato: 77 - '273-1(p
ApplieanVOwner: MP'V F rb{�e� i1 S _ State Sampling Polnt:UVIrA�d- R
Investlgator(s): V+,A't3At' Section, Township, Lange: -1A,&N 1-- - C
Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): O'C2 0 Local relief (concave, convex, none): f )o'mo Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):_ ML*Y-) VD (A Lar. l.vng: ] t
gatum:_N(l t,
Soil Map unit Name. w (c i ) fl(; j Q.715-1 NW] classlflcation: _ Vsl% r* -
Are climatic P hydrologic conditions on the
site typical for this Vme of year? Yes No (If no, explain In Remarks,)
Are Vegetation �, Sail , or Hydrology signl(Icantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes rK No
Are Vegetation ___. Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Nfl Is the Sampled Area
I•lydr'rc Soli Present? Yes _ No : within a wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Na
Remarks:
L1,!ul-^w �1,.� 1"�. t d`.S�I tr"-": „ `rr �;141t` '4, � r"141Vti � ��t�11•.•'�1•• �1i''+�y'� i,Y t.l..{J ���rt�i ra,_flr� r,"
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
SegondaN lndLolars (minimum f two reqUired)
Primary Indicators (Mnl_mum_crf_one Is required,,
check all that apply]
_ Surface soil Cracks (156)
Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (Aa)
i Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (81)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
, Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Sails (CO)
` Crayfish Burrows 0)
Drift Deposks (133)
— Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (54)
! Other (Explain in Remarks)
„ Stunted ar Stressed plants (D1)
_ tron Deposits (65)
— Geomorphic Position (172)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
— Shallow Aqultard (D3)
water•Stalned Leaves (139)
` Mlcrotopotgraphlc Relief (134)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAG -Neutral Test (05)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes _ No
X Depth (inches):�
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches);
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Includes capillary frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspectlt7ns), ifavallabie:
Remarks: -
1n,e,r rA'►_,�,1�,�,►
C"�1'f5�f9+";4 M1_I{ r f°7, �:.�`,; P�►+-,l1
US Army Corps of l_nglneers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific~ names of plants. Sampling Point: "am -D
7,
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
Cover
5eec e5? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • +� gni n"670
Saplfggl hrub Stratum (Plot size; 15 1
—2 Kda
That Are o81, FACW, or FAC: (A)
1.
FAC species
p
_ �L
2. b,ogc,_AwL✓ .�n f --n
FACU species _
X 4
a._U1nnt ts. ri...6y-#- — y�C
Total Number of Dominant
x 5 =
4.rrne.,r�l,�nn,- Mf y
Column Totals:(A)
Species Across All Strata:_ (C�j
5.
Prevalence Index
= BlA =
6.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are QBL, FACW, or FAC: L- f- (Alb)
7,
Prevalence Index worksheet:
F Total cover
Total 5 cover of;
Multiply bye
50% of total cover: BU, 20% or total cover: I L4. Ut
OBL species
x 1 =
Saplfggl hrub Stratum (Plot size; 15 1
FACW species
x 2 =
1.
FAC species
p
x 3
2. b,ogc,_AwL✓ .�n f --n
FACU species _
X 4
a._U1nnt ts. ri...6y-#- — y�C
UPI -species
x 5 =
4.rrne.,r�l,�nn,- Mf y
Column Totals:(A)
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index
= BlA =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test Is >660%
3 - Prevalence Index Is s3.0'
= Total Cover q - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover; , 19 � 20% of total cover: —
Herb Stratum (Plot size: re) ) data In Remarks or an a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2. rA- 1-,, �i" t + i rte ? t`ryClA
3 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
-- — be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
6, Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In, (7,6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7 height.
B,
saplinglshrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9, than 3 in. DSH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10, m) tall.
11. Herta — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
" Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 5.28 R tall,
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover: IWoody vin® --All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: k.5 ) _ h_ei ht.
7, 11nr1ic-tzar♦. i�S
2.
4' Hydrophytic
5• Vegetation
Total Cover Present? yes No
50% of total cover: P}. S 20% of total cover; 0 1
Remarks; ft.)
(Include photo numbers here or an a separate shee
`I J % 4 f q4,4— r:(om t',10 -+r__ -t uQ IWA M'tj ,r -N { s: NF1 t _. or
US Army Corp% of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Paint: t_41�- - r'r
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of lndicatorsj
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(Inches) Cvlor_frTlviSl]- ` - _ _ ._Ce1oL[tnoist?
'U TVRe Lacy
Texture Rgmarks
�. NA too
--
'0 lob
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM -Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
"Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Eplpedon (A2)
, Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,14B)
(MLRA 147,148)
— Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Fioodplain Soils (F19)
— Stradfled Layers (AS)
Depleted Matrix (173)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (f=6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
o Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
� Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Thick dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ sandy Mucky Mineral (51) (LRR N,
_ Iran -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
^ sandy Gieyed Matrix (S4)
Umbric Surface (1713) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophylic vegetalinn and
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Solis (F19) (MLRA 1413) wetland hydrology must be present.
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): _ _ —
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Na
-
Remarks:
l(TV96 &-1-x,
US Army Carps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2,0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: �F + Ls�� �'lo jcr Tri- City/County: _�IJLt E ��.y+ to r� Sampling hate: •'�"7 • 117
App4canVOwner: _M9V` State: WC- Sampling Point: WGi B(�} DP4
Investigator(s): MML Section, Township, Range: Ginn.' QwkAe_
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): V,.klw ope LocM relief (concave, convex, none): t' nnr n rJl� _ Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): INAt-P Y Lat: , 09 �Ur �� Long: 9 `f 34:�t Datum: Ny%-O =z
Soil Map Unit Name; %,yA L_o,2y, !IMC ', NWI classification: FE i L
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes A No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances°' present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site leap showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes --t—X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Welland? Yes X Nn
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes A Na
Remarks:
�'�� .�oi►�` 4s +rl.+�r1 P'.,N �.1.-O P'. j1:.x�' �' (1 � tJa V`"-+nf r+�i ��� r1�vl-�ItSLI- �.Vri'sc1.i�.}►'r3,r�a 1 w.�.i4etinn�.� C7-N"'Cr\. ,
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one Is requlred: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
ZC Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (1313)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
c Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
— Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_X_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1)
— Presence of Reduced iron (C4)
— Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
— Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
— Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
— Thin Muck Surface (C7)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84)
, Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI)
Iron Deposits (85)
_ Geomorphic Position (112)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
— Microtopographic Relief (134)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology present? Yes X No
includes capillwy fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), it available:
Remarks:
q l
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.17

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
-A- =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: +L
Herts Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
1C
11
50% of total cover:
Woody -Vine Stratum (Plot size: J
1.
50% of total cover
photo numbers here or on a separate
Sampling Point; 00- 16t • DP4
Dominance Test worksheet:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: J
% Cover Species?
Status
1. rA n& M 0,0 - .,P��vi+nrt& 1S
90 t
Nfr
2.-i�lAti-ST`+l k ori �,itn�t 4l'I +
2CG�
{G
3. nk1 PCC. �1-, t'.�1.0110%
15F
Ac
4. tat rttvt
1--N CLA
5. 'Twni w uzj� t�CrnA`v,i n,nn
Jr
-f1cEA
6.
FAC species x 3 -
7.
UPL species x 5 -
I �4� a Tatal Cover
50% of total cover:
i-0 20% of total cover:
Z43
SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size:
}
1. Si)A,e%e i-n4.r+Ik
SRC
2. .P.r
-r ("C.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
-A- =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: +L
Herts Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
1C
11
50% of total cover:
Woody -Vine Stratum (Plot size: J
1.
50% of total cover
photo numbers here or on a separate
Sampling Point; 00- 16t • DP4
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
2
That Are 013L, FACW, or FAG:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
�4 ��a
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A113)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
_ Total % Cover of: Multiply by
013L species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x 3 -
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 -
Cofumn Totals: (A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = BlA =
1 - ftap}d Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test Is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index Is 53.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or an a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions or roar Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DDH and greater than or equal to 3.28 It (1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20% of total cover:
Woody vine -- All woody Vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Total Cover Present? Yes No
20% of total cover:
ui LQ °(a -Ih O c�+.'1M4i ri A�+ rte' V fl �'}y r1 t/�
� 1c- CSw
US Army Corps of E=ngineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL.
Sampling Point: 1.00 DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
` Dark Surface (S7)
(inches)
Color fm - %- -
Color (moist) % eVpe� Laces
Texture Remarks
_ Black Histic (A3)
Ioist)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
. 3
2,rW 51 V. eQ%
5 YR 518 2�
.art.
T 2
2. l t -j- ko
325" to/S �
a„��.� L�,rt.V,k
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
! Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
, Other (Explain in Remarks)
Hydric Soli Indicators:
Indicators Far Problematic Hydric Soils';
_ Histosol (Al)
` Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Potyvalue Below Surface (58) ((MLRA 147,148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (59) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
! Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
)L Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
! Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
, Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
— Redox Depressions (FB)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
! Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'indicators of hydrophytic Vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
�r
Hydric Soil Present? Yes)+ No
Remarks
i1Gll i Ltl t'. Sb �v 3G Ci C poi �S OL'f c +P+CV11.1--q .
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Perennial RPW Stream A and
Wetland CC
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 8, 2017
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field Office- Charlotte Satellite Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RPW Stream A and Wetland CC
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.097872° , Long. -80.985607°
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Walkers Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Sugar Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUG): Catawba (HUC# 03050103)
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): November 10, 2017 (USAGE Site Visit [partial portion of Wetland CC verified])
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There W"waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
® Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 3,518 linear feet: 3-10 width (ft) and/or 0.70 acres.
Wetlands: 0.202 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: There is an isolated non -404 jursidictional wetland in the southern portion of the project limits that is
approximately 0.14 acre in extent.
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
'For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section HLD.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HLAA and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 45.67square miles
Drainage area: 1.64 square miles
Average annual rainfall: 42 inches
Average annual snowfall: 4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: RPW Stream A flows to RPW Walkers Branch which flows to RPW Steele Creek. RPW
Steele Creek flows into TNW (Sugar Creek).
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

Tributary stream order, if known: fourth.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man -altered). Explain: RPW Stream A has been straigtened.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 10 feet
Average depth: 8-12 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
® Cobbles ® Gravel ❑ Muck
® Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: some eroding banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: highly modified riffle/run/pool complexes due to straightening.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0-2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: discrete and confined.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics: Confined within channel bed and bank.
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
® Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
® changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® shelving
®
the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
®
sediment sorting
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
®
scour
® sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
® water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM .7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: slightly turbid water; watershed is urban.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): forested buffer of approximately 100 feet or greater.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: amphibian habitat.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: Wetland CC: 0.202 acres; Forested Wetland CC= 0.117 acre and Herbaceous Wetland CC= 0.085 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Forested and herbacesous (within the existing sewerline) located in FEMA floodplain of
RPW Stream A.
Wetland quality. Explain: medium to high quality; Wetland CC received overflow from an off site Stormwater
Control Measure (SCM) .
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain: Wetland CC has no flow to RPW Stream C.
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics: Wetland CC is connected when RPW Stream A overtops its banks.
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings: N/A.
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
® Ecological connection. Explain: Wetland CC is located in the FEMA floodplain of RPW Stream A.
® Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: There is a levi between the FEMA floodplain and RPW Stream A. Wetland
CC experiences overbank flow when RPW Stream A overtops its banks.
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 50 - 100 -year floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil fihn on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: Wetland CC is adjacent to shopping center and roads and receives overflow water from an
off site stormwater control measure (SCM) .
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Wetland CC is located on the right bank of RPW Stream A and is
adjacent to the Rivergate stub road and SCM. Wetland CC has a buffer of 50-100 feet.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Wetland CC is in the floodplain, but has about 70% coverage due to an existing
sewerline right of way.
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: amphibian habitat.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 1
Approximately ( 0.202 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Wetland CC N 0.202
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland CC filters run off water from
the land and functions as storage for water when RPW Stream A overtops its banks Wetland CC is divided into forested (0.117
acre) and herbaceous (0.085 acre within existing sewerline right-of-way) wetland.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section I1I.1):
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 11L1): Wetland CC is located in the 100 -Year FEMA floodplain of RPW Stream A and experience a surface water
connection when Stream A overtops .
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERSIWETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream A was determined to be a perennial stream and exhibits strong flow, a eight to ten -foot average
ordinary high water width; substrate consisting of coarse sand and gravel with bedrock outcrops; and a strong presence of
crayfish, ampibians, and iron oxidizing bacteria.

Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 2760 linear feet; 10-12 width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑I Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.202 acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
® which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
'See Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
�I Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):.
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Lake Wylie (1993) and Fort Mill, North-South Carolina (1980).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:NWI for North Carolina (USFWS, 2015).
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
® FEMA/FIRM maps: FEMA Firmette #3710440900K.
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NCONE Map, dated 2014.
or ® Other (Name & Date): RiverGate Tract; 7-27-16.
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):

Perennial RPW Stream B
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 8, 2017
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field Office- Charlotte Satellite Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Perennial RPW Stream B
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.0978721 & Long -80.985607°
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Walkers Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Sugar Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba (HU# 03050103)
ED Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): November 10, 2016
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 3,518 linear feet: 3-10 width (ft) and/or 0.70 acres.
Wetlands: 0.09 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: There is an isolated non -404 jursidictional wetland in the southern portion of the project limits that is
approximately 0.14 acre in extent.
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section IH.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: .
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the histructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry:
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: N Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

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

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YM Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IIID:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream B was determined to be a perennial stream and exhibits strong flow, a three-foot average
ordinary high water width; substrate consisting of coarse sand and gravel with bedrock outcrops; and a strong presence of
crayfish, ampibians, and iron oxidizing bacteria.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 758 linear feet; 2-3 width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs..
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):lo
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus' standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
udgment (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
�I Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Lake Wylie (1993) and Fort Mill, North-South Carolina (1980).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:NWI for North Carolina (USFWS, 2015).
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
® FEMA/FIRM maps:FEMA Firmette #3710440900K
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NCONE Map, dated 2014.
or ® Other (Name & Date): RiverGate Tract; 7-27-16.
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

Welland BB
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 8, 2017
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field Office- Charlotte Satellite Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Wetland BB
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.097872'fl, Long. -80.985607° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Walkers Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Sugar Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba (HU# 03050103)
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): November 10, 2016
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
® Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 3,518 linear feet: 3-10 width (ft) and/or 0.70 acres.
Wetlands: 0.09 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: There is an isolated non -404 jursidictional wetland in the southern portion of the project limits that is
approximately 0.14 acre in extent.
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section IH.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: square miles
Drainage area: acres
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: .
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the histructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry:
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: N Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

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

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YM Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IIID:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
®Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section II1.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
'See Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:Wetland BB is
located in a upland depression that is topographically isolated from other features.
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: 0.14 acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Lake Wylie (1993) and Fort Mill, North-South Carolina (1980).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:NWI for North Carolina (USFWS, 2015).
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
® FEMA/FIRM maps:FEMA Firmette #3710440900K
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NCONE Map, dated 2014.
or ® Other (Name & Date): RiverGate Tract; 7-27-16.
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

btu. STATE ai
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
January 24, 2017
Kaitlin McCulloch
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Construct Residential Subdivision, RiverGate Tract, Steele Creek Road, Charlotte,
CWS 2016-3940, Mecklenburg County, ER 16-2381
Dear Ms. McCulloch:
Thank you for your letter of December 28, 2016, 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
environmental.review(d),ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
60VI Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Nruflf-al (in J
December 29, 2016
Kaitlin McCulloch
Carolina Wetlands Inc
550 East Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
RE: RiverGate Tract; 2016-3940
Dear Kaitlin McCulloch:
PAT McCRCIRY
SwMy
S USAN IKLT,7rT Z
..ie',C*1 erarti
NCNHDE-2667
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
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), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Suzanne Mason at suzanne.mason&ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8637.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
--"-'Nothing Compares
State o1FNorck C=Ll a I Depa Eml cfl,==Bal and 09� Rmauras
109 Fast am_- Street I Rale46NC27601
919407-730D

Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on December 29, 2016; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2016. Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
RiverGate Tract
Project No. 2016-3940
December 29, 2016
NCNHDE-2667
Element Occurrences Documented Within Pro'ect Area
Taxonomic EO ID
Scientific Name Common Name
Last Element
Accuracy
Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date Rank
Freshwater 29447
Villosa constricta Notched Rainbow
2007-03-08 E
3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G3
S3
Bivalve
Concern
Concern
Freshwater 29549
Villosa delumbis Eastern Creekshell
2007-03-08 E
3 -Medium
---
Significantly
G4
S4
Bivalve
Rare
Freshwater Fish 29434
Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter
1997-08-28 E
3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G3
S3
Concern
Concern
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on December 29, 2016; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2016. Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5

Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on December 29, 2016; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2016. Please resubmit
Page 3 of 5
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
RiverGate Tract
Project No. 2016-3940
December 29, 2016
NCNHDE-2667
Element Occurrences Documented
Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID
Scientific Name Common Name
Last Element Accuracy Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date Rank
Freshwater 29447
Villosa constricta Notched Rainbow
2007-03-08
E
3 -Medium Species of
Special
G3
S3
Bivalve
Concern
Concern
Freshwater 29549
Villosa delumbis Eastern Creekshell
2007-03-08
E
3 -Medium ---
Significantly
G4
S4
Bivalve
Rare
Freshwater Fish 29434
Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter
1997-08-28
E
3 -Medium Species of
Special
G3
S3
Concern
Concern
Natural 1001
Mixed Moisture Hardpan ---
2010
D
2 -High ---
---
G2?
S2
Community
Forest
Natural 582
Upland Depression ---
2006
D
2 -High ---
---
G2G3
S2S3
Community
Swamp Forest
Natural 743
Upland Depression ---
2006
D
2 -High ---
---
G2G3
S2S3
Community
Swamp Forest
Vascular Plant 13743
Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur
1800s
Hi?
5 -Very ---
Endangered
G3
S2
Low
Vascular Plant 23173
Pseudognaphalium helleriHeller's Rabbit -Tobacco
1992
F
4 -Low ---
Significantly
G4G5T
S3
Rare Peripheral
3T4
Vascular Plant 13864
Silphium Prairie Dock
1999
X?
2 -High ---
Significantly
G4G5
S2
terebinthinaceum
Rare Peripheral
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name
Representational Rating
Collective Rating
McDowell Nature Preserve
2 -Very High
3 -High
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name
Owner
Owner Type
McDowell Nature Preserve
DNP Mecklenburg County
Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open
Space Mecklenburg County
Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on December 29, 2016; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2016. Please resubmit
Page 3 of 5

your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 4 of 5

NCNHDE-2667: RiverGate Tract
December 29, 2016
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Managed Area (MARBA)
Page 5 of 5
1:23,944
0 0,2 0A 0.8 mi
0 0.325 0.65 1.3 km
Sources: Earl, HERE, GeLonie. Intermap, increment P Corp., GE6CO, VSGS,
PAO, NPS, NRCAN, ('—Saw, IGN, Kadaster NL, prdnance Survey, Ssri Japan,
MET;, Cut China (Hong Kong), swis tagra, Mapmyindia. 4 Qpen5tF"Wap
wnlnbumrs, and the GIS User Commundy

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 15, 2017
Gregg Antemann
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Dear Mr. Antemann:
Subject: RiverGate Residential Development Project; Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-17-192
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated January 17, 2017. The Service submits the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, you are seeking NWP's #18, #12, and #33 to impact
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. associated with the construction of a multi -family residential
development on 41 acres in Charlotte, North Carolina. You indicated that the site is primarily
composed of undeveloped upland and riparian forest and contains 3,518 linear feet of
jurisdictional stream and 0.06 acre jurisdictional wetland. You did not discuss proposed
permanent impacts to those features. No project plans were provided in your correspondence.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
You assessed the habitat suitability for federally protected species during a site visit on July 27,
2016. At that time you observed suitable habitat for the federally threatened northern long-eared
bat (Myotis septentrionalis). According to Service records, we agree that suitable summer
roosting habitat may be present in the project area for the federally threatened northern long-
eared bat. However, the final 4(d) rule (effective as of February 16, 2016), exempts incidental
take of northern long-eared bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from
a known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost
during the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Based on the information provided, the project (which
may require tree clearing) would occur at a location where any incidental take that may result
from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule.
You have determined that the proposed project would have no effect on any other federally
protected species based on the lack of suitable habitat. Additionally, the Service has record of no
other federally protected species in the project area. Please be aware that in accordance with the
Act, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal agency or its designated representative to

review its activities or programs and to identify any such activities or programs that may affect
endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The Act does not require written concurrence
with the Service for "no effect" determinations from the Action agency. If it is determined that
the proposed activity may adversely affect any species federally listed as endangered or
threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated.
We offer the following recommendations in the interest of protecting natural resources that occur
in the area:
Stream Buffers
Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems. They
accomplish the following:
1. catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint-source pollutants
from reaching streams;
2. enhance the in -stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source
pollutants;
3. act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods)
and by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which
maintains stream flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and
creating logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
Forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide
along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater])
should be created and/or maintained along all aquatic areas. Impervious surfaces, ditches, pipes,
roads, utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission, etc.), and other infrastructures that require
maintained, cleared rights-of-way and/or compromise the functions and values of the forested
buffers should not occur within these riparian areas.
Impervious Surfaces/Low Impact Development (LID)
In addition to the increased storm -water flows caused by the lack of or loss of riparian buffers
and any floodplain development, increased development outside the floodplain will also
contribute to the quantity and quality of storm water entering project area waterways. Recent
studies' have shown that areas of 10- to 20 -percent impervious surface (such as roofs, roads, and
parking lots) double the amount of storm -water runoff compared to natural cover and decrease
deep infiltration (groundwater recharge) by 16 percent. At 35- to 50 -percent impervious surface,
runoff triples, and deep infiltration is decreased by 40 percent. Above 75 -percent impervious
surface, runoff is 5.5 times higher than natural cover, and deep infiltration is decreased by
'Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (15 federal agencies of the United States Government).
Published October 1998, Revised August 2001. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices.
GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN -0-934213-59-3.
2

80 percent. Additionally, the adequate treatment of storm water in development areas is essential
for the protection of water quality and aquatic habitat in developing landscapes. Additionally,
these impervious surfaces collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and
quickly transmit them (via storm -water runoff) to receiving waters. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, this nonpoint-source pollution is one of the major threats to
water quality in the United States, posing one of the greatest threats to aquatic life, and is also
linked to chronic and acute illnesses in human populations from exposure through drinking water
and contact recreation.
Increased storm -water runoff also directly damages aquatic and riparian habitat, causing
stream -bank and stream -channel scouring. In addition, impervious surfaces reduce groundwater
recharge, resulting in even lower than expected stream flows during drought periods, which can
induce potentially catastrophic effects for fish, mussels, and other aquatic life. Accordingly, we
recommend that all new developments, regardless of the percentage of impervious surface area
they will create, implement storm -water -retention and -treatment measures designed to replicate
and maintain the hydrograph at the preconstruction condition in order to avoid any additional
impacts to habitat quality within the watershed.
We recommend the use of low -impact -development techniques,2 such as reduced road widths,
grassed swales in place of curb and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention areas, for
retaining and treating storm -water runoff rather than the more traditional measures, such as large
retention ponds, etc. These designs often cost less to install and significantly reduce
environmental impacts from residential development.
Where detention ponds are used, storm -water outlets should drain through a vegetated area prior
to reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention structures should be designed to allow
for the slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm -water
surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the
purpose of storm -water -control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no
storm -water -control measures or best management practices should be installed within any
stream (perennial or intermittent) or wetland.
We also recommend that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials (i.e., pervious
concrete, interlocking/open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction of roads, driveways,
sidewalks, etc. Pervious surfaces minimize changes to the hydrology of the watershed and can
be used to facilitate groundwater recharge. Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and
store heat and allow the cooler soil below to cool the pavement. Additionally, pervious concrete
requires less maintenance and is less susceptible to freeze/thaw cracking due to large voids
within the concrete.
Invasive Exotic Species
Invasive plant species are present on site according to the information provided. We are
concerned about the introduction and spread of invasive exotic species in association with the
'We recommend visiting the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site (http://www.epa. ov/polluted-runoff-
nonpoint-source pollution/urban-runoff--low-impact-development) for additional information and fact sheets
regarding the implementation of low -impact -development techniques.
3

proposed project. Without active management, including the revegetation of disturbed areas
with native species, project corridors will likely be sources of (and corridors for) the movement
of invasive exotic plant species. Exotic species are a major contributor to species depletion and
extinction, second only to habitat loss. Exotics are a factor contributing to the endangered or
threatened status of more than 40 percent of the animals and plants on the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.I It is estimated that at least 4,000 exotic plant
species and 2,300 exotic animal species are now established in the United States, costing more
than $130 billion a year to control .4 Additionally, the U.S. Government has many programs and
laws in place to combat invasive species (see www.invasivespecies.gov). Specifically, Section
2(a)(3) of Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) directs federal agencies
to "not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the
introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere." Despite their
short-term erosion -control benefits, many exotic species used in soil stabilization seed mixes are
persistent once they are established, thereby preventing the reestablishment of native vegetation.
Many of these exotic plants' are also aggressive invaders of nearby natural areas, where they are
capable of displacing already -established native species. Therefore, we strongly recommend that
only species native to the natural communities within the project area be used in association with
all aspects of this project.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-17-192.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor
e.c. David Schaeffer, USACE
3D.S. Wilcove, D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in
the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.
4D. Pimentel, L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous
species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-65.
'Lists of invasive exotic plants can be found at http://Www.tneppc.org/and http://Www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/
(exotic wildlife links) on the Internet.
4