20181194 Ver 1_SAW201800162 CorpsCommentsFINAL_20181126

Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
F-IT4771��y_VJd�i7�E:�iI�7�[:3��
November 26, 2018
Mr. Dan Lacz
SL Horton Road, LLC
195 Morristown Road
Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920
Dear Mr. Lacz:
Please reference the application for an Individual Department of the Army Permit
submitted on your behalf on August 24, 2018, by Mrs. Jennifer Robertson of Atlas
Environmental to discharge fill material into 1.09 acre of impounded waters, 115 linear
feet of stream, and 0.017 acre of wetlands for the construction of a commercial
warehouse development. The proposed project includes the construction of a 421,900
square foot building, two trailer parking areas, two employee parking areas, two truck
courts, and two storm water ponds. The project site is located at 10137 Horton Road,
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The project was advertised by public notice on October 19, 2018. Comments in
response to the notice were received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources. These comments are
enclosed for your information.
In addition to conducting a public interest review which balances the reasonably
expected benefits against the reasonably foreseeable detriments, all Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 404 permits must meet guidelines for the specification of disposal sites
for dredged or fill material under CWA Section 404(b)(1). These comments are being
submitted pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230).
We have completed our initial review of the application and determined that the
following additional information is necessary to expeditiously complete our permit
decision:
1. The alternatives analysis submitted with the application includes three siting
criteria (property size, properties proximity to the Charlotte Regional Intermodal
Facility (CIRF), and whether the property is for sale). However, a detailed basis
for each criteria was not provided. Please provide the following information
relative to the siting criteria:

-2-
a. Please provide a detailed rationale for why the property must be 42-60 acres
in size.
b. It is unclear why a 5 mile straight line buffer market area (offsite alternative
area) was used. Since the purpose of the project is to serve vendors doing
business with the CIRF, please revise the market area to include all areas
that contain similar developments that currently utilize the existing CIRF
facility or explain why another market area is more appropriate/reasonable.
c. It is unclear how you determined whether a particular parcel was for sale. The
regulations do not require that a particular property be for sale but only that it
could be reasonably obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to
fulfill the basic project purpose (40 CFR 230.10(a)(2)). Please explain in detail
how this analysis was conducted.
We strongly recommend that you work with our office and your environmental
consultant to revise/add criteria as needed. We recommend establishing
criteria that are minimum/maximum or pass/fail. The criteria must include a
detailed rationale based on industry standards or what is reasonable/feasible
for a similar development in the market area.
2. The alternatives analysis states that a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
query was used to locate all parcels between 42-60 acres within a 5 -miles
straight line buffer of the CRIF and east of Lake Wylie. It is not clear why the
analysis was conducted in this manner since it is common for our office to see
assemblages of parcels used to meet project property size requirements.
Additionally, it is not clear why you used a straight line distance rather than drive
time or drive distances to determine the market area, why you chose to exclude
areas east of Lake Wylie from the analysis, or why you didn't use a market area
that is representative of the warehouses that currently utilize the existing CIRF
facility. We strongly recommend that you hire a professional commercial real
estate firm to conduct an independent analysis of suitable properties within the
market area.
3. In terms of the site specific analysis, there are many items discussed in the
analysis of each alternative that are not related to the siting criteria. This includes
cost of the property, tree clearing, utility access, riparian buffers, and zoning. If
these items were an important component of site selection, they should be
developed into siting criteria. Otherwise, they should be removed from the
analysis.
4. While environmental impacts were discussed across each site, it was not one of
the siting criteria and it appears that you used different methods to estimate the
potential quantity of waters of the United States across each site. This included a

-3-
Lidar analysis, a GIS analysis, and a field delineation (applicants preferred
alternative). Please add environmental impact as a siting criteria and use one
methodology to compare them.
5. Many of the maps submitted with the application are difficult to read. This
includes the Lidar maps included in the alternatives analysis and the project
plans. Please submit revised maps as appropriate.
6. A brief description of onsite avoidance and minimization was provided in the
cover letter. However, no substantive discussion of the onsite alternatives was
provided with the permit application. Please provide an onsite alternative analysis
and compare the alternatives using the siting criteria. Only reasonable/feasible
alternatives need to be considered in detail.
7. Please provide a no Federal action (no permit) alternative. The no -action
alternative should include modifying the project to eliminate work in waters of the
United States, alternatives not available to the applicant, and/or denial of the
permit. See 33 CFR 325 Appendix B.
8. We have evaluated the conceptual compensatory mitigation proposal included in
the permit application. We have determined that, if a permit is issued for the
applicant's preferred alternative, you will need to demonstrate that the larger
stormwater system will replace (1:1 ratio) the water quantity/quality function
currently provided by the pond in addition to the minimum stormwater
quantity/quality required for the proposed project. If this is not possible,
compensatory mitigation will be required through the purchase of wetland credits
(if available) at a ratio of 0.5:1.
The information requested above is essential to the expeditious processing of the
application. Please submit one consolidated response to all comments by January 15, 2019.
This information is required pursuant to 33 CFR 325 Appendix B and 40 CFR 1506.5. If you do
not submit this information within the given timeframe, the application will be administratively
withdrawn. Withdrawal of the application does not preclude you from reopening the application
at a later time, provided you submit the required information.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (704) 510-
1437 or David. L. ShaefferCcD-usace.army. mil.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by
SHAEFFER.DAVI D.LEIGH.1260750573
• �'� DIV: KUGovernment, ou=DoD,
ou=Pl,ou=SA,
cn=S HAEF FFR. DAVI D.LEIGH.1260750573
Date: 2018.1 1.26 15:36:16 -05'00'
David L. Shaeffer
Project Manager
Charlotte Field Office

In
Enclosures
cc (via email):
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources — Sue Homewood ([e-mail])
Atlas Environmental — Jennifer Robertson [e-mail])

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 1, 2018
Mr. David Shaeffer
Regulatory Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Shaeffer:
Subject: Public Notice (SAW -2018-00162) for a Proposed Commercial Warehousing and
Distribution Center, 10137 Horton Road, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
On October 19, 2018, we received the subject Public Notice. We have reviewed the information
presented and we are providing the following comments in accordance with the provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Endangered Species. According to our records and a review of the information presented, no
listed species or their habitats occur on the site. Therefore, we believe the requirements under
section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Project Recommendations. We have no objection to the proposed actions and support the
proposed mitigation, compensation, and mitigation. We generally recommend that 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. If these widths are not practicable then we
recommend that the vegetated riparian zone extend at least 25 feet from the stream channel.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please contact Mr. Byron Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225.
In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number
4-2-18-304.

Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

NORTH CAROLINA
ROY COOPER Environmental Quality
cant^ w
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
lnterdn vlrrat
November 19, 2018
Corps Action ID# SAW -2018-00162
DWR# 20181194
Mecklenburg County
David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Subject Project: Charlotte Intermodal Logistics Center
Dear Mr. Shaeffer:
On behalf of the NC Division of Water Resources, we respectfully request that you consider the
following comments within your review of the 404 Individual Permit request for the above referenced
property:
1. The applicant's Purpose and Need states that buildings of similar size are proposed to be
available in 2019. They also state that 90% of Silverman Groups industrial buildings are leased
prior to complete. Neither statement specifically supports that this project has provided
sufficient purpose and need for the size and location proposed. The stated purpose is for
warehouse space for vendors doing business at the Charlotte Regional Intermodal Facility yet
site selection criteria appears to be based on a specific acreage that is not supported in the
purpose and need statement.
2. One of the site selection criteria is distance to the Charlotte Regional Intermodal Facility. Since
the project is related to transportation of materials, the selection of distance in a straight line
rather than the driving distance is not a valid site criteria.
3. The Alternatives Analysis provided by the applicant states that the one of the selection criteria is
that the property must be for sale. It is the Division's understanding that property not for sale
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
612 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

Page 2 of 2
should still be considered in an alternatives analysis as it may still be able to be acquired by the
applicant.
4. The Alternatives Analysis provided by the applicant appears to have inconsistencies within it:
a. Purchase price is referred to however property price is not listed as a selection criterion.
b. Access to future sewer line is noted as a benefit for Site 1 however access to infrastructure
is not listed as a site selection criterion.
c. The analysis comparison of potential impacts to each alternative does not appear to be a
fair comparison. One alternative is based on a jurisdictional determination, one alternative
appears based on GIS and Lidar data and one alternative appears to be based on just GIS
data.
5. The applicant has not provided a detailed on-site Alternatives Analysis or a detailed avoidance
and minimization plan for the facility. While it is appreciated that the applicant has avoided the
majority of streams and wetlands within the property, the applicant has not provided
information regarding what size building could be constructed if they were to avoid or minimize
impacts to the pond and stream CH 200 and why that size building would not be a viable
alternative project.
6. The Division has requested additional technical information from the applicant and requests
that the USACE also consider the attached letter during the review of the application.
Thank you for your considering the Division's comments during your review of this Individual Permit. If
you have any questions, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-776-9693 or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
.od
Karen Higgins, Supervise
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
cc: Jennifer Robertson, ATLAS Environmental (via email)
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC (via email)
Byron Hamstead, USFWS (via email)
DWR MRO
DWR —Wetlands and Buffer Permitting Branch
Filename: 181194Ch arlottel ntermodal Logisti csCenter(M ecklen bu rg)_404Com m ents

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
May 7, 2018
Jennifer Robertson
Atlas Environmental, Inc.
712 English Tudor Lane
Charlotte, NC 28211
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Residential Development, 10137 Horton Road, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 18-0798
Dear Ms. Robertson:
Thank you for your letter of April 16, 2018, 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.reviewkncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
tom.
�3vRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
19 November 2018
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive,
Suite 611
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Subject: Individual Permit Application for the Charlotte Intermodal Logistics Center,
Mecklenburg County; USACE Action ID SAW -2018-00162, DEQ No. 20181194.
Dear Mr. Schaeffer,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
Individual Permit (IP) application. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
On behalf of Mr. Dan Lacz of SL Horton LLC, Atlas Environmental, Inc. (Atlas) has submitted an
Individual Permit (IP) application for the approximately 42.6 -acre property located at 10137 Horton Road
in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The applicant is proposing to construct an
approximately 421,900 -square foot commercial warehouse building, two trailer parking areas, two
employee parking areas, two truck courts, and two stormwater best management practice ponds.
Unnamed tributaries to Beaverdam Creek in the Catawba River basin occur in the project area. The IP
application is requesting to permanently impact 115 linear feet of an intermittent stream, 0.0. 17 acre of
wetlands, and 1.009 acres of open water. NCWRC is pleased to see the applicant is avoiding 88.5% of
streams and 70.7% of floodplain wetlands.
We have no current records of state or federally -listed rare, threatened, or endangered species within or
adjacent to the project; however, the lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence
of rare, threatened, or endangered species. A Mecklenburg County Open Space occurs adjacent to the site
to the south-southwest. NC Division of Mitigation Services has an easement along unnamed tributaries to
Beaverdam Creek, including the tributary abutting the wetland (WL 2000) in the southeast corner of the
site.
Although we have no objections to the project, we are concerned for the amount of imperviousness at the
site. Additional impervious surface results in an increase in stormwater runoff that can exert significant
impacts on stream morphology. This will cause further degradation of aquatic habitat through accelerated
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation Division • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
19 November 2018
Charlotte Intermodal Logistics
SAW -2018-0162
stream bank erosion, channel and bedload changes, altered substrates, and scouring of the stream channel.
In addition, pollutants (e.g., sediment, heavy metals, pesticides, and fertilizers) washed from developed
landscapes can adversely affect and extirpate species downstream. However, we offer the following
recommendations to further minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
1. We are pleased to see larger riparian buffers. We prefer the outlet structure for the Stormwater
BMPs to remain outside the riparian buffer to the greatest extent possible. The manage -use zone
should also occur outside the 100 -foot buffer (difficult to discern in drawing). In general, we
recommend a minimum 100 -foot, undisturbed native forested buffer along each side of a
perennial streams and 50 -foot undisturbed, native forested buffer along each side of an
intermittent stream and wetland.
2. We would prefer the applicant use stormwater wetlands instead of dry ponds. Stormwater
wetlands are one of the more effective stormwater practices in removal of pollutants. On page 9
of the application, the applicant proposed to compensate for the open water impact with a
stormwater BMP. Dry ponds do not compensate for the loss of ecological function the pond has
provided wildlife for over 53 years. Atlas indicates the use of dry ponds is due to the proximity
of Charlotte International Airport. It is unlikely the stormwater wetlands on site, depending upon
their design, would attract birds, of size or number, that would cause a significant hazard to air
traffic compared to the existing pond or nearby lakes.
3. We recommend that stormwater BMPs be located at least 750 feet from small wetlands to
minimize hydrologic disturbance and ecological function.
4. Use non-invasive native species and Low Impact Development (LID) technology in landscaping.
Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment hydrologic
regime, but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. LID techniques include
stormwater planters and bioretention that can collect stormwater from driveways and parking
areas. Additional alternatives include narrower roads, swales versus curbs/gutters and permeable
surfaces such as turf stone, brick, and cobblestone. Compared to conventional developments,
implementing appropriate LID techniques can be more cost-effective, provide space -saving
advantages, reduce runoff, and protect water quality (Roseen et al. 2011).
5. Due to population declines in bats, we recommend avoiding tree clearing activities during the
maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 — August 15).
6. We recommend draining the pond slowly and during late fall or winter.
7. Consider using native seed mixtures and plants that are beneficial to wildlife for revegetating
disturbed areas and landscaping. Avoid using Bermudagrass, redtop, tall fescue, and lespedeza,
which are invasive and/or non-native and provide little benefit to wildlife. Consider an
alternative mix of red clover, creeping red fescue, and a grain, such as oats, wheat, or rye. Also
avoid using invasive, non-native landscaping plants, such as privet and nandina
(http://www.ncwildflower.org/plant_galleries/invasives—list).
The use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices is
strongly recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose -weave
netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and
horizontal twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be
avoided as it impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. These measures should be
routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat,
suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species.

Page 3
19 November 2018
Charlotte Intermodal Logistics
SAW -2018-0162
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input for this project. For further information or free technical
guidance from the NCWRC, please call [phone] or email olivia.munzer(&ncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
C�
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Literature
Roseen, R. M., T. V. Janeski, J. J. Houle, M. H. Simpson, and J. Gunderson. 2011. Forging the Link:
Linking the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Community Decisions.
University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, and
Antioch University New England.
ec: Alan Johnson, NCDWR
Sue Homewood, NCDWR
Byron Hamstead, USFWS
Todd Bowers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jennifer Robertson, Atlas Environmental, Inc.
Dan Lacz, SL Horton Road, LLC