20170283 Ver 1_More Info Received_20190131

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 27, 2017
Ms. Sarah Belk Gambrell
Partnership Steele Creek Limited
6100 Fairview Rd., Ste. 640
Charlotte, NC 28210
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DWR# 17-0283
Mecklenburg County
Subject: APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
RiverGate Development
Dear Ms. Gambrell:
You have our approval, in accordance with the General Certification and those
conditions listed below, for the purpose proposed in your application dated March 8, 2017, and
received by the Division of Water Resources (the Division) on March 13, 2017. After reviewing
your application, we have determined that this project is covered by Water Quality General
Certification Numbers 4086, 4092, 4094 which can be viewed on our web site at
http://Portal.ncdenr.or_q/web/wq/swp/ws/401. The General Certifications allow you to use
Nationwide Permit Numbers 12, 18, and 33 once they are issued to you by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE). Please note that you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited to) Sediment
and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certifications will expire when the associated 404 permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification. It is advised that all conditions of the
Certification are reviewed prior to initiation of the project. In addition to the requirements of the
Certification, you must also comply with the following conditions:
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
application. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be
required to send us a new application for a new Certification. If total wetland fills for this
project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total impacts to streams (now or in
the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval
letter; and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. 15A NCAC
02H .0506 and15A NCAC 02H .0507
2. No permanent impact from the placement of riprap is proposed.
The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing once construction at the
approved impact areas has commenced. 15A NCAC 02H .0502 (e)
Stare of No, Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. NC27699-1611
9]q,1079000

4. Approved Impacts:
Type of Impact
Amount Approved
Amount Approved
Temporary Impact
Permanent Impact
Stream
134 linear ft.
0 linear ft.
Wetland
0.05 acre
0.09 acre
5. Diversion Ditches and other storm water conveyances as related to the sediment and
erosion control measures shall be matted and/or stabilized to reduce sediment loss and
turbidity. This includes interior/exterior slopes of sediment basins. 15A NCAC 02H .0506
(b)(3) and (c)(3)
6. Bare/fill slopes in excess of 10 feet in height and within 30 feet of surface waters shall be
matted. 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(3) and (c)(3)
You are required to provide one copy of the approved SMP, including plan details on full-
sized plan sheets, with proof of Charlotte's approval. The approved SMP shall be
submitted to the DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit (1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
INC 27699-1650) before any impacts authorized in this certification occur. After it is
approved and submitted to the Division, the SMP may not be modified without prior
written authorization from Charlotte. If the SMP is modified in the future, then you shall
provide one modified SMP with proof of approval to the DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting
Unit prior to the commencement of the modifications.
8. Use of native vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques is required.
Any rip rap utilized, shall not be placed in the streambed, unless approved by DWR
9. The Permittee shall ensure that the final design drawings adhere to the permit and to the
permit drawings submitted for approval. 15A NCAC 02H .0507 (c) and 15A NCAC
02H .0506 (b)(2) and (c)(2)
10. The permittee shall report any violations of this Certification to the Division of Water
Resources within 24 hours of discovery.. 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c)
This Certification can be contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of the General Statute
1508 by filing a written petition for an administrative hearing to the Office of the Administrative
Hearings (hereby known as OAH). A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at
htto://www.ncoah.com/or by calling the OAH Clerk's Office at [phone].
Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of this notice, a petition must be filed with the
OAH. A petition is considered filed when the original and one (1) copy along with any applicable
OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal office hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00
am to 5:00 pm, excluding state holidays).
The petitions may be faxed to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one
(1) copy of the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within
five (5) business days following the faxed transmission. Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.)
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
919.707.9000

One (1) copy of the petition must also be served on DEQ as follows:
Mr. Sam M. Hayes, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
This letter completes the review by the Division under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional
Office at 704-663-1699.
Sin erely,
1p r Corey Basinger, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Mooresville Regional Office, DEQ
Attachments
cc: David Schaeffer, Army Corps of Engineers, Charlotte, email
Greg Antemann, CWS, email
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I `Nater Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street 1 1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
919.707.9000

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse 8rvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704527.1133 (tax)
December 19, 2018
Mr. David Shaeffer
Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Satellite Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Nationwide Permit No. 12, 18, and 33 Transfer Letter
Rivergate Tract Multi -family Residential Development
Mecklenburg, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2016-3940
Action ID No. SAW -2016-02090
Dear Mr. Shaeffer,
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) is writing this letter to change the permittee's name from Bailey
Patrick of MPV Properties, to Darren Lucas of Steele Creek Rivergate Apartments, LLC in acoordance
with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 29, transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications_ Therefore,
the permittee is transferring the nationwide permit verification to the new entity by submitting this letter to
the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the nationwide permit veriFcation is
attached to the letter. The new permittee has signed the statement below:
"When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are stiff in existence at the time file
property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit including any special
conditions, will continue to be binding on the new owners) of the property. To validate the transfer of this
nationwide permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conddKxis,
have the transferee sign and date below_'
��s14
day of e W� g r+rr-t Uk_ L VC 0 a1Q tr�i�- Ir
Print Name and Title
Steele Creek Rivergate Apartments. LLC
Signature of Authorized Representative 3010 High Pine Church Road
Asheboro, NC 27205
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: Darren. lucas@yahoo.00m
Thanks for your attention to this matter
Gregg Ar,temann, PWS
Attachments Nationwide Penivt No. 12, 18, and 33 Alteon ID SAW -2016-02090

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:
0 Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NW P) number: 12, 18, 33 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NW P or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes 0 No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
0 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes N No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes N 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 0 No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes N
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes 0 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:
S Agent ❑x Other, specify: Client
4b. Name:
Mr. Darren Lucas
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Steel Creek Rivergate Apartments, LLC
4d. Street address:
3010 High Pine Church Road
4e. City, state, zip:
Asheboro N.C. 27205
4f. Telephone no.:
336-669-7683
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 alata), 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, S5, S6, 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 three stream
crossings. Sewerlines and waterlines will be installed via open trench methods.
Stream Impacts: S1, S2, S4, S5, and S6
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.
Temporary Impacts S5 and S6 will result from a 30 -foot temporary construction easement crossing Stream and Stream B. The
8" water main will be installed via open trench and stream banks will be returned to original grade upon completion of the work.
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 bridc
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 stakesNati@*toed if construction takes place during the appropriate
planting season. Otherwise, the live stakes will be installed during the next planting seaF0N Form — Version 1.4 January 20(

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
❑x Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
SAW -2016-02090 Issued: 5/3/2017
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 ❑ 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.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporar T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of
wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f. Area
of
impact
(acres)
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.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial
(PER) or
intermittent
(INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdicti
on
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
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
S5
T
Open Trench Utility Crossing
Stream A
PER
Corps
10
30
S6
T
Open Trench Utility Crossing
Stream B
PER
Corps
10
30
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
194 If
3i. Comments: No permanent impacts to streams are proposed. Temporary impacts to streams total 194 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 indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
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.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(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.
Buffer Impact
number-
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
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
1a. 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 30 -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 three waterline stream crossings (at Rivergate Parkway and Walker Branch Drive). 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 Z 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
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes 0 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?
0 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
0 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 0 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 0 No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
0 Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
0 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
❑x Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
© No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
© No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
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
Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's 1.25.19
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