20190459 Ver 1_401 Application_20190410

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 - BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Patterson Road
2. Work Type: Private ❑ Institutional ❑ Government ❑ Commercial ❑�
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form I33d and 133e]:
The project purpose is to develop the project site as an industrial park.
4. Property Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
McDonald Development Company
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS; POC: Mr. Sean Martin
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]: SAW -2018-02209
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
The intersection of Hambright Road and Patterson Road in Huntersville, North Carolina
0
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: 01723315. 01723314. 01723313. 01723302. 01722106. 01722107. and 01722108
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Huntersvllle
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Torrence Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: 03050101
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑� Section 10 & 404
Regulatory Action Type:
❑Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #39
❑ Regional General Permit #
✓❑ Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
0 Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
April 8, 2019
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Satellite Office
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 39
Patterson Road
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
SAW -2018-02209
Dear Mr. Shaeffer,
On behalf of our client, McDonald Development Company, please find enclosed a Pre -
Construction Notification (PCN) application for the Patterson Road project, pursuant to a
Nationwide Permit No. 39. An Individual Permit waiver is being requested for impacts to
streams on the basis that proposed impacts will result in minimal individual and cumulative
adverse environmental effects. The Patterson Road property (Mecklenburg County Tax Parcel
Nos. 01723315, 01723314, 01723313, 01723302, 01722106, 01722107, and 01722108) is
approximately 61.9 -acres in extent. The project purpose is to develop the subject site as an
industrial park to serve the unmet demand for first-class warehouse and manufacturing space in
the Huntersville submarket. The McDonald Development Company has contracted Carolina
Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project.
An executed Agent Authorization Form is included. CWS is submitting a check for $570.00 to
cover the cost of the application fee for the NCDEQ — DWR PCN submittal.
Please do not hesitate to contact Sean Martin at 828-719-1320 or [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding this project.
Sincerely,
��iA
Sean Martin
Senior Scientist
Cc:
Daniel Hines — Bohler Engineering
Tracy White —McDonald Development Company
Mr. Alan Johnson - N.C. Division of Water Resources, Mooresville Regional Office
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Page 1 of 2

Patterson Road
Nationwide Permit No. 39
Attachments
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
A: Agent Authorization Form
B: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Application with Strearnmetland
Dataforms, Project Figures, and Photo Pages
C: NCSAM Form (Stream A & B)
D: NC SHPO Response Letter
E: Protected, Endangered, and Threatened Species (PETS) Report
F: NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Database Query Response Letter
G: Concept Plan
H: Alternative Site Plan No. 1
I: Alternative Site Plan No. 2
J: NCDMS In -lieu Fee Mitigation Approval Letter
Page 2 of 2

o�oF W ATFRbw QG
7 q
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10, 2008
Page 1 of 15
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
FE Yes
❑ 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 ® 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
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties? If yes, answer
1 h below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Patterson Road
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Huntersville
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
Page 1 of 15

3. Owner Information
Anne McElroy Griffin
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: William Vance McElroy Jr.
Donald R. Lee, Trustee of the Jane McElroy Lee Family Trust
Margaret Conn Horton and Hazeline Conn Moss
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 29338-961, 31011-756, 29338-973, 30373-29, 29338-976, 31011-731, 29338-964
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if N/A
applicable):
Anne McElroy Griffin, 16232 Leeward Ln, Huntersville, NC 28078
3d. Street address: William Vance McElroy Jr., 9547 Pembroke Rd, Huntersville, NC 28070
Lee Family Trust POC: Donald R. Lee, 166 Willow Valley Dr, Mooresville, NC 28115
Margaret Conn Horton & Hazeline Conn Moss, 267 Milton Turnpike, Milton, NY 12547
3e. City, state, zip: I (see above addresses)
Anne McElroy Griffin 704-827-7555
3f. Telephone no.: William Vance McElroy, Jr. 704-394-0472
Donald R. Lee, Trustee 704-607-3841
Margaret Conn Horton and Hazeline Conn Moss 875-795-2213
3g. Fax no.: I N/A
Anne McElroy Griffin memaw35(d-)icloud.com
3h. Email address: William Vance McElroy, Jr. somersghent .aol.com
Donald R. Lee, Trustee dlee(o)clarkpatterson.com
Margaret Conn Horton and Hazeline Conn Moss Edhorton 1 84(d)gmail.com
4. Applicant Information
4a. Applicant is:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name:
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information
5a. Name:
5b. Business name:
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Developer
Tracy White
McDonald Development Company
525 N. Tryon Street Suite 1600
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
704-378-8757
N/A
[e-mail]
Sean Martin
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc (CWS)
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
855-214-7635 ext. 722
704-527-1133
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 15

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
01723315, 01723314, 01723313, 01723302, 01722106,
01722107, and 01722108
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.381380 Longitude: -80.864525
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c.
Property size:
61.9 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Torrence Creek
proposed project:
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV
2c.
River basin: map is available at
Catawba
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/
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 maintained fields and undeveloped forested areas. Land cover within the project area
consists of deciduous forest, mixed forest, developed open fields, woody wetlands and emergent herbaceous
wetlands. Forested areas appear to be primarily early to mid -succession in age and development, and visual
observations indicate recent and historic land clearing and timbering activities within forested areas.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.054
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
994 (intermittent) total
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
McDonald Development has been researching the Charlotte market for a long time to identify a suitable site to
develop for a business park. A meeting in early 2018 with Lake Norman ED reps indicated they receive a steady flow
of requests from existing Huntersville companies and users new to the market for manufacturing, R&D and
office/distribution space in and around The Park — Huntersville. In the past year, the demand for industrial space in
Huntersville was more than 2,300,000 SF. The users ranged from 10k SF up to 400k SF, with most between 20k —
100k SF, and they were looking for quality facilities. A lot of this demand is a result of the connectivity in Huntersville
now that 1-485 has been completed in both directions to I-85. The project purpose is to develop the project site as an
industrial park to serve the unmet demand for first-class warehouse and manufacturing space in the Huntersville
submarket.
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
McDonald Development is proposing a new industrial development along Patterson Road just north of the Hambright
Road intersection in Huntersville, NC. The site is approximately ±61 acres in size and is currently vacant farmland and
forest. The site is split by Patterson Road with approximately 30 -acres on the west side and 31 acres on the east side.
The new development proposes to construct an industrial park with access points from Patterson Road. Currently, the
Town of Huntersville is reconstructing Patterson Road to an industrial standard road section from Hambright Road to
a point approximately 2,000' north near an existing Duke Energy transmission line. The Town is also planning to
continue Patterson Road north to Vanstory Road in the future.
The subject site is planned to be developed as an industrial park comprising of approximately 906,600 SF of building
space. The project will also include other site improvements such as vehicular parking, truck court and loading areas,
utilities including storm/sewer networks, landscaping, and lighting. In addition, an 1,800' public sanitary sewer line is
also being proposed to serve the overall development. The proposed on-site sewer will make a connection to an
existing off-site line along the eastern property boundary without impacts to jurisdictional waters. At final build -out, the
industrial park will have an approximate 65-70% imperviousness. Fill slopes from the edge of the park to the property
Page 3 of 15

Page 4 of 15
boundaries will be maintained at a 2.5:1 gradient, at its steepest. Stormwater runoff from the buildings and parking lots
will be directed to the proposed onsite collection system and directed to on-site stormwater detention ponds for flow
detention and water quality improvement.
The Patterson Road project proposes unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters under Nationwide Permit (NWP)
No. 39 with the construction of a new industrial park. Grading and fill placement for site development will result in
temporary and permanent stream impacts, as well as, permanent wetland impacts. Proposed site development
includes fill placement in two streams, A and B, resulting in 616 If of permanent stream impacts (S1 & S2). An
additional 20 If of temporary fill stream impacts (S3) is proposed to prevent water quality pollution during fill placement
in the upstream channel. Temporary fill will be placed on the lower end of the permanent stream impacts to create an
impermeable dike for capturing stream flow and sediment that may be held in solution. Stream water will be pumped
from the pooled area at the dike and directed to a filter bag located in the uplands where sediment will be collected.
Clean stream water will be diverted from the filter bag back to the stream channel below the dike to maintain
hydrology during construction. Proposed site development includes fill placement in two wetlands, BB and CC,
resulting in 0.04 -acre of permanent wetland impacts (W1 & W2). Impacted wetlands are both forested and located in
natural crenulations, adjacent to a seasonal RPW (Stream A).
The applicant requests a waiver of the 300 If limit on impacts to streams, as provided for in NWP 39, on the basis that
the proposed impacts will result in minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. Stream A and B
are both classified as intermittent and scored `Low' quality using NCSAM. Historic on-site land -use has included
clearing of forested areas, agricultural, and ditching, which has resulted in moderate to severe channel incision within
Stream A. Abandoned agricultural ditches were observed abutting and directed to Stream A, which are contributing
stormwater flows and sediment inputs. Recent field observations found that Stream A is moderately to severely
unstable and actively contributes sediment to downstream waters. Stream bed substrate is dominated by sand and
silt, indicative of active erosion in the stream channel. Stream bank heights were observed between 6 and 15 feet,
indicating active downcutting of the stream bed and active bank erosion. Several deep head cuts were observed in the
channel, indicating the stream bed is unstable. Macrobenthic populations were evaluated during site assessments,
and findings indicated low quality species in low abundance with poor diversity. The overall function of the affected
resource is relatively low, as its biological and chemical functions are degraded, and the stream system contributes to
water quality pollution (sediment) in the watershed; hydrology appears to be primarily stormwater driven. The relative
importance of Streams A and B to the region is low, as their primary contribution is stormwater conveyance and
support of riparian forested areas. Affected riparian forested areas have historically been impacted by timbering and
agriculture with a high degree of invasive species competition. The environmental setting in the vicinity of the NWP
activity is undeveloped -forested, residential, industrial, commercial development, and transportation.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations
by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for
this property / project (including all prior phases) in the
past?
Comments: The USACE completed a delineation site
review on January 18, 2019. An updated PJD package
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
was submitted to David Shaeffer of the USACE on
February 12, 2019 based on the delineation review. The
updated PJD package is attached to this PCN application,
and the ORM form has been updated to reflect the PJD
request along with the NWP #39.
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination,
®Preliminary El Final
what type of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
Name (if known): Sean Martin / Dan Zurlo
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
The Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination has not been issued at this time.
Page 4 of 15

5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or
obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in
the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 5 of 15

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ® P ❑ T
Fill
Headwater Forest
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.016
W2 ® P ❑ T
Fill
Headwater Forest
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.026
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.042
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ® P ❑ T
Fill
Stream A
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
4
603
S2 ® P ❑ T
Fill
Stream B
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
2
13
S3 ❑ P ® T
Fill
Stream A
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
4
20
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
636
3i. Comments: 616 If permanent and 20 If temporary of impacts.
Page 6 of 15

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.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Tempora T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑ PEI T
04 ❑ PEI T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse El Tar -Pamlico El Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
re uired?
131 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 15

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
To avoid and minimize adverse effects to jurisdictional waters to the maximum extent practicable the Patterson Road
site was delineated, and on-site aquatic features were verified by the USACE during a site visit on February 12, 2019.
A Concept Plan was developed by Bohler Engineering in early February of 2019, just prior to the Corps visit.
However, once the USACE verified on-site aquatic features, an alternative site plan (No.1) was developed using the
Concept Plan to reduce impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters. Alternative Plan No.1 was presented to the USACE,
USEPA, NCDEQ-DWR, and NCWRC for review as part of a permit pre -application meeting. The results of the pre -app
meeting determined the scope of the project was too narrow for using an Individual Permit. The USEPA and USACE
offered to consider waiving the Individual Permit threshold if stream impacts could be further reduced, allowing the
project to be permitted under a Nationwide Permit. Alternative Plan No.2 was developed following the pre -app
meeting, which significantly reduces the overall proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Therefore,
Alternative Plan No.2 is the preferred plan in pursuance of an NWP No.39 with an IP waiver for the Patterson Road
project.
No -build Option: A no -build option was considered, which includes consideration of off-site alternatives. The
proposed park needs to connect to existing and planned roads to provide convenient access to 1-77 and 1-485,
and utilize existing municipal water & sewer, and local electric and gas utilities. A total of 17 sites were identified
during the initial market search, which was later narrowed down to three short list sites, including the Patterson
Road site. The other two short list sites (Everette Keith Rd and 6855 Old Statesville Rd) were deemed unsuitable
due to an irregular shaped property unsupportive for preferred building configuration/size and increased impacts
to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The Patterson Rd site supports the proposed facility configuration and
reduces the amount of impacts to jurisdictional waters. Therefore, the Patterson Road site is being purchased to
meet the growth and demand for commercial warehouse space in the Huntersville area. However, a no -build
option would not meet the project goals and is therefore eliminated from consideration.
• Concept Plan: The Concept Plan was developed on February 11, 2019 and maximizes the entire project site
boundary. The Concept Plan has a total of 960,460 sf or 22.05 ac of building footprint. Associated parking and
truck courts are scaled to the building footprint; larger building footprint requires more parking and larger truck
courts. This plan depicted two stormwater BMP detention basins located within three stream channels and fill
placement for site development within four stream channels and three wetlands. The total permanent impacts to
waters of the U.S. with the Concept Plan is estimated to be 994 If of stream and 0.054 ac of wetlands.
Alternative Plan No.1: Alternative No. 1 was developed following the USACE site delineation verification, and this
plan was presented to regulatory agencies during a permit pre -application meeting. Alternative Plan No. 1
reduced the building, parking, and truck court footprint, as well as, the stormwater BMP detention extent
compared to the Concept Plan. Total building footprint size is 906,600 sf or 20.8 ac. This plan depicts two
stormwater BMP detention basins located within three stream channels, but the basins were reduced in size due
to an overall reduction in site imperviousness. Total impacts to waters of the U.S. with Alternative No.1 is 794 If of
stream and 0.021 ac of wetlands.
Alternative Plan No.2: Alternative No.2 was developed following the regulatory agency permit pre -application
meeting in order to lower proposed impacts to waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable in pursuance
of an NWP No.39 with an IP waiver. Alternative No. 2 reconfigures parking areas, increases fill slopes to the
maximum allowable gradient (2.5:1), and changes the shape and extent of the stormwater BMP basins to avoid
stream impacts. This plan reduces proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters while maintaining the project purpose
and need. Total impacts to waters of the U.S. with Alternative No.2 is 636 If stream (616 If permanent) and 0.042
ac of wetlands.
Page 8 of 15

b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Temporary fill placement below the area of permanent stream fill will be used to prevent water quality pollution during
fill placement in the upstream channel. Temporary fill will be placed on the lower end of the permanent stream impacts
to create an impermeable dike for capturing stream flow and sediment that may be held in solution. Stream water will
be pumped from the pooled area at the dike and directed to a filter bag located in the uplands where sediment will be
collected. Clean stream water will be diverted from the filter bag back to the stream channel below the dike to maintain
hydrology during construction. Following construction, temporary fill will be removed from the channel and disturbed
stream banks will be returned to original height and slope, matted with a bio -degradable matting, and seeded with a
native erosion control and riparian seed mix.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
® Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
® DWQ ® Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
®Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
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:
606 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
® warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 9 of 15

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation? If yes, you will have to fill out this entire form — please
contact the State for more information.
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 10 of 15

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 ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
Page 11 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
65-70%
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:
The subject property is located within the Town of Huntersville and will be required to meet the stormwater
requirements quality requirements set forth by the Town as well as the Post Construction Stormwater Ordinance
which was developed for the Town of Huntersville by Mecklenburg County. Low Impact Develpoment (LID) is
required by the Town when more than 12% BUA (built upon area) threshold is exceeded in order to provide additional
water quality treatment from runoff. BMP's shall be designed to achieve 85% TSS removal treat 50% of runoff from
the 1St inch of rainfall.
Below is a summary of the post construction detention requirements for the Town of Huntersville for high density
projects. Both Volume Control analysis and Peak Control analysis is required. The post -construction control measures
must manage the increase in volume for the 1 -year, 24-hour storm event (Volume Control). In addition, attenuation of
the 2 -year and 10 -year, 24-hour storm events are required such that the post -developed flow is less than the pre -
developed flow (Peak Control).
In order to meet the Town and County stormwater requirements, two (2) stormwater detention ponds have been
chosen for the BMP. Each pond will be generally located at the low points of the property and sized appropriately
based on the impervious area of the new development. Runoff for each phase of the project will be directed to the
stormwater ponds where water will be detained for a period of time before exiting via an outlet control structure
designed to reduce the runoff velocity to pre -development conditions. The stormwater ponds will also serve to achive
the desired storwmater quality requirements by providing an area for TSS (total suspended solids) to settle prior to
exiting the pond. In addition to the ponds, interior bioretention areas andvegetated swales will be implemented to
reduce the volume of the post -construction 1 -yr, 24-hour storm event.
Western Site:
Pond Total Volume: 375,000 cf
BMP Volume Controlled: 76,500 cf
Flow: Pre- Post- Volume Controlled
2 -year 3.5 cfs 3.43 cfs 135,000 cf
10 -year 27.8 cfs 24.2 cfs 212,000 cf
Eastern Site:
Pond Total Volume: 455,000 cf
BMP Volume Controlled: 79,000 cf
Flow: Pre- Post- Volume Controlled
2 -year 3.7 cfs 3.2 cfs 164,000 cf
10 -year 29.0 cfs 25.0 cfs 262,000 cf
With the proposed pond facilities, the peak flow for the 2 -year and 10 -year storm events are being reduced below the
pre -developed flow condition. Further, the volume in the facility is adequate to manage and detain the BMP volume
requirement for the proposed impervious areas. As such, it is the opinion of the engineer that the stormwater
management and best management practice requirements of the post -construction condition will be satisfied with the
proposed facilities.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
® Certified Local Government
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
Page 12 of 15

C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Town of Huntersville
® Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 13 of 15

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This will be a single and complete project.
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 project will be served by the City of Charlotte municipal sewer.
Page 14 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
E] Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on February 26,
2019 to determine the presence of any federally -listed, candidate, endangered, threatened, or critical habitat within the
project limits and surrounding area. Based on the NCNHPO review (attached), there are no records for rare species,
important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary.
On August 2, 2018 and January 21, 2019 CWS staff scientists performed a pedestrian survey examining the project site
for potentially occurring protected species and supporting habitat. The USFWS Endangered, Threatened, FSOC, and
Candidate Species website for Mecklenburg County, https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/mecklenburg.html, was
consulted prior to the on-site field investigation to determine which protected species are listed as occurring or potentially
occurring within the project vicinity. The results of the CWS field investigation are attached in the PETS Report. CWS
concludes the proposed project will not affect federally listed species or species are exempt. A copy of the PETS Report
was sent to the Asheville USFWS office for concurrence; no response has been received at this time.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® 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 ® 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?
NCSHPO web -mapper: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. A letter requesting cultural resource review was forwarded to the
NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources on 11/27/18. A response letter (attached) received on 1/4/19 indicates
a review of the project was completed, and they are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, they have no comment on the project as proposed.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Flood Risk Information System: Panel 4549
Sean Martin
0
A
��
4-8-19
Agent's Printed Name
Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent authorization letter is attached.)
Page 15 of 15

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A:
Agent Authorization Form
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
1, --rvr1Aoj n i , representing Me,�) a'�-44
hereby certify that I have authorized Sean Martin of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to
act on my behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and
acceptance of this request for wetlands determination / permitting and any and all
standard and special conditions attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
A. A . 0 O`Z-S
Applicant' s' ature
11 Z,,Ip
1 11,0
Date
Agent's signature
August 21, 2018
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
ATTACHMENT B:
PJD Application
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177(office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
To: Mr. David Shaeffer
Charlotte Regulatory Satellite Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Patterson Road
Huntersville, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: February 12, 2019
WE ARE SENDING YOU: J Preliminary JD Package ❑ Approved JD Package ❑ Other
ON BEHALF OF: McDonald Development Company, POC: Mr. Tracy White
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED:
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
Preliminary ORM
2
Jurisdictional Determination Request Form
3
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form
4
Property Owner Information
5
Agent Authorization Form
6
Figure 1. Vicinity Ma
7
Figure 2. USGS Site Location
8
Figure 3. Aerial Imagery
9
Figure 4. USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey of Mecklenburg Count
10
Figure 5. USDA-NRCS Historic Soil Survey of Mecklenburg Count
11
Figure 6. National Wetland Inventor
12
Figure 7. Jurisdictional Boundaries
13
USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP1 and DP2
14
NCDEQ Stream Classification Form SCP1-SCP4
15
Photograph (Photographs 1-5
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
J For verification and signature ❑ Revisions per field visit ❑ As requested ❑ As submitted
REMARKS: Mr. Shaeffer, we are submitting a preliminary JD for your verification and signature.
Please do not hesitate to contact Sean Martin at 828-719-1320 or [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding this request.
Sincerely,
yo�" 0 C -,A -A
Sean Martin
Senior Project Scientist
Christine Geist, PWS, CE
Principal Scientist

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 - BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Patterson Road
2. Work Type: Private ❑ Institutional ❑ Government ❑ Commercial ❑�
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form I33d and 133e]:
The project purpose is to develop the project site as an industrial park.
4. Property Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
McDonald Development Company
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS; POC: Mr. Sean Martin
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]: SAW -2018-02209
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
The intersection of Hambright Road and Patterson Road in Huntersville, North Carolina
0
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: 01723315. 01723314. 01723313. 01723302. 01722106. 01722107. and 01722108
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Huntersvllle
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Torrence Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: 03050101
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑� Section 10 & 404
Regulatory Action Type:
❑Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #39
❑ Regional General Permit #
✓❑ Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
0 Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

urisdictional Determination Reauest
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ug latoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
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]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: North of the intersection of Hambright Road and Patterson Road in Huntersville, North Carolina
City, State:
Huntersville, North Carolina
County: Mecklenburg
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): See attached Table 1.
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: CWS Inc., POC: Mr. Sean Martin
Mailing Address: 550 E. Westinghouse Blvd,
Charlotte, NC 28273
Telephone Number: 828-719-1320
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
EI am the current property owner.
ZI am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
1-1 Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: See attached Table 1.
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION','
By signing below, I 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, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Print Name
Capacity: FZ] Owner [:]Authorized Agents
K //% // x
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
❑✓ 1 intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
E] I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
❑ I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
Other:
3 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E,
a If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION',4
By signing below, I 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, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 1, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
0.
/o
Print Name
Capacity: ✓❑ Owner ❑ Authorized Agent'
Date `
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
0 I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
continrt that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel_
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
❑ Other:
For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

urisdictional Determination Re
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION 3,4
By signing below, I 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, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Print Name
Capacity: ❑✓ Owner ❑ Authorized Agents
//— !—/8
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which would be
❑designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
✓ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
5 I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
❑ Other:
For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties,, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017
Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION','
By signing below, I 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, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Print Name
Capacity: ❑✓ Owner ❑ Authorized Agents
Date
Signature v
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
RI intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
,/� I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
MI intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
MI intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
Other:
s For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
a If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓❑ Size of Property or Review Area 75.6 acres.
❑ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
Longitude
35.381380
-80.864525
❑✓ A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ug latory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
✓❑ Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
✓❑ Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
Fr-(] Soil Survey Map
✓❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
❑✓ Landscape Photos (if taken)
nNCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
FOther Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/re ug latory/regdocs/JD/RGL 08-02_ App _ A_ Prelim_ JD_ Form_fillable.pdf
' Please see hlW://www.saw.usace.ariny.mil/Missions/Re ug latory-Permit-Proaram/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: CWS. POC: Mr. Sean Martin, 550 E Westinghouse
Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District- Asheville Regulatory Field Office
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The intersection of Hambright Road and
Patterson Road in Huntersville, North Carolina
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Huntersville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.: 35.381380° Long.: -80.864525°
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17S
Name of nearest waterbody: McDowell Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): February 18, 2019
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
Latitude (decimal
Longitude
Estimated amount of
Type of aquatic
Geographic authority to
Number
degrees)
(decimal degrees)
aquatic resources in
resources (i.e.,
which the aquatic resource
review area (acreage
wetland vs. non-
"maybe" subject (i.e.,
and linear feet, if
wetland waters)
Section 404 or Section
applicable
10/404)
Wetland
35.38244
-80.861186
0.012 ac.
Wetland Waters
Section 404
AA
Wetland
35.382336
-80.861686
0.026 ac.
Wetland Waters
Section 404
BB
Wetland
35.382546
-80.862343
0.016 ac.
Wetland Waters
Section 404
CC
Stream A
35.382053
-80.862007
8801f
Non -Wetland
Section 404
Waters
Stream B
35.381664
-80.862568
13 if
Non -Wetland
Section 404
Waters
Stream C
35.383113
-80.867993
641f
Non -Wetland
Section 404
Waters
Stream D
35.383163
-80.868077
371f
Non -Wetland
Section 404
Waters

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request
and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after
having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when
they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWT) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit,
and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is
hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic
resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and
conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could
possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions;
(3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept
a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary;
(5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without
requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in
reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that
all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as
jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court;
and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and
conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to
make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources
in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in
the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Figurer Jurisdictional Boundaries
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ 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: Cornelius, NC (1978), Derita, NC (1979), Lake
Norman South, NC (1979), and Mountain Island Lake, NC (1978)
® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, Sheets 1-4,
dated 1976
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS NWI, Dated 2017
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): Figure 3: Aerial Imagery
or ®Other (Name & Date): Site Photographs 1-5, Taken August 2, 2018
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
rl PtPrm in a ti nn c
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
11/27/18
Signature and date of person
requesting PJD (REQUIRED,
unless obtaining the signature
is impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing
an action.

Table 1: Owners by Parcel Table
Mecklenburg County
Owner Name(s)
Owner Address
Parcel Number
01722106, 01723313
William Vance McElroy Jr.
9547 Pembroke Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
01722107, 01723314
Jane McElroy Lee Family
5029 Celeste Court
Trust; POC: Donald R. Lee
Charlotte, NC 28270
01723302
Margaret Conn Horton
2237 Milton Road
Hazeline Conn Moss
Charlotte, NC 28215
01723315, 01722108
Anne McElroy Griffin
16232 Leeward Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
For owner contact information contact Tracy White (McDonald Development Company)
at 704-378-8757 or [e-mail]

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
1, --rvr1Aoj n i , representing Me,�) a'�-44
hereby certify that I have authorized Sean Martin of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to
act on my behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and
acceptance of this request for wetlands determination / permitting and any and all
standard and special conditions attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
A. A . 0 O`Z-S
Applicant' s' ature
11 Z,,Ip
1 11,0
Date
Agent's signature
August 21, 2018
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

Kentucky
Tennessee
to re
Georgia
Latta Plantation
Nature Presence
i Extent
Virginia i
i�
i tw; 01
77
South Carolina
ti i reek Gilead Rd
0'%W' wnekcf
1-b pewe II
High
... .11r1 •1. �.
Torrence
Creek orrelryc-p G[aa�
Greenway
a
0
U
X
VarI I.r_BL
Gar Creek
Nature
Pre serye
N �bri� r
Ra
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND VICINITY MAP PROVIDED BYESRI 22017.
Hornets Nest
RIgbnal Park
SCALE: DATE:
No nh sto ne
Country
C lub
r: NcKrn pror'q =
e` Oehler
m
w{ Ffp Nature
Preaerve
a �erlle C❑nggr
e�dRd Huntersville u>zd
S`xthp,,,
1 11• G�� r'
k 9
l G�
d �
fA Q
r m v
"f e_
n
f?�
0.
a
CL
_m
0
I
}lam
tit lid
s ti
x
5
A1e><•�
V
`. Ix
North
Lake Mad or1h
Lake Cr
a ;
S �
Legend
21
Project Limits (60.9 ac.)
5,000 2,500 0 5,000 Feet
1 inch = 5,000 feet 11/5/2018 FIGURE NO.
Vicinity Map 1CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2018-0215 DJZ Patterson Road of
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.381380, -80.864525CAG WETLAND SERVICES. Huntersville, NC 7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\JD\ArcGIS\Figure1_Vicinity.mxd

trance Creelr
Huntersville
Y
_
KINC Y AVE
�
y
m
1
C<[�
hEW OAK
_
� 3i z
-
�'I
I
dw
•'
�/']
l
� 4N
-
[
o
O4. .
Cyt
I
I ..
dF ''
r�fF
y Like N a
Ch,rtrr
0
j
x„ � 1prr•rtcr c-rrlA
a
4J, O
rah
Al.
t
ygMBT Le
ADEkn
v
S
� d
N M&klen
Q
S`
t;�xcn
• �i
At EX -A RANA{t9.i
Legend
I Project Limits (60.9 ac.)
e
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): CORNELIUS, NC (1978), DERITA, NC (1979),
LAKE NORMAN SOUTH, NC (1979), AND MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE, NC (1978). 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
SCALE:DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 2,000 feet 11/5/2018 USGS Topographic Map ^/
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: `
2018-0215 DJZ Patterson Road of
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: C A R 17 L I N A Mecklenburg County
35.381380, -80.864525 CAG WETLAND SERVICES. Huntersville, NC 7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\JD\ArcGIS\Figure2_USGS.mxd

GATeam Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\JD\ArcGIS\Figure3_Aerial.mxd

EnB
AWORRUPW CeD2
HeB
CeD2
PaE
I
WkD
CeB2
WkE
WkD
Va
VaD
EnB
EnD WkD
Wk
Va B
HeB
Va B
Va B
EnB Trt
EnB
!9MEl
eB \ ` EnB
HeB
C:;f
Legend
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded No, 69 .7
CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded No 5.9 EnB
EnB Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 3.8 1 Project Limits (60.9 ac.)
EnD Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 7.5
MO Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Yes 0.4 Roads
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 12.8
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC, DATED 2013.
eB D
SCALE:1 inch = 1,000 feet 11/5/2018 DATE: USDA-NRCS Current Soil FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 11 Survey of Mecklenburg County 4
2018-0215 DJZ Patterson Road of
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.381380, -80.864525 CAG WETL.ANp 5ERVICcs Huntersville, NC 7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\JD\ArcGIS\Figure4_CurrentSoil.mxd

a-
F Is
MCI r F L
CAI?
n
Ce82 MPFi
1 &A, C1 Met]
[}p i Le
C(102
rMkG lies H.
C(102� � Cef)2 1 �1'+�•O VaR
} Ceps 1 .
J MO Va
wkn
Vas
I Ce6?
f- C ce W k8
v ah
W4,0
C•8�1. .kLr' NSa£i .r VI•.R
1WkFs 1 n r
iiii J,Cep'L CaDVd
.'
a�
i vas
C^83 S
HB u
G
EnD HI't',•r: v ae � sie8
Cep2 �y '' VaU rvfl?
MU En6 41
/ fF f
r EnG
Cep
11aD �•t �.P�, � VaP
�c9 V e e
Irk
F • r;
2N2 En 1 i!
f c.
Ceez GC62 Cr82
B Mo
rr
Vas Wk HuR
Hambright Road _ `V
eBi Fnf3 H, Li CPfi 1,
llr Ei'H .:R F' .u,.
Ya$
H..H
Irq Ge6? MeB F O Fs=F1
l,r n8 1�r7 J I -{:-r3 VD
En6 � En6 IVIri It89
EnH Fnr3 v�6
MrE7
. h" a Me(3 En6 V•�H
4 p VtiD Vai] cob? CPO.
FnB
n
v ae moi_{ra
i g '•i ,.,,. h - �'
• Unit Name and Descriptior HydicR�Er
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded No • 69.7 vq0
CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded No 5.9 Legend
EnB Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 3.8 Vag
EnD Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 7.5
MO Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Yes 0.4 Project Limits (60.9 ac.)
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 12.8
Totals for Area o Interest: 0
2,000
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS PUBLISHED SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC, SHEETS 1-4, DATED 1976. 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 2,000 feet 11/5/2018 USDA-NRCS Published Soil
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: Survey of Mecklenburg C C
2018-0215 DJZ Patterson Road of
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.381380, -80.864525 CAG WETLANID 5EJQVIr-Es Huntersville, NC 7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\JDWrcGIS\Figure5_HistoricSoil.mxd

9tyO°a oa0
T° a`�e
/' cn
o,Qa
N
r o
v� arkers o
Go t 3
wROdanthe p
0
ON
N
7
Hambri5ht Rd
I
t
'Qe
pL eese By We esee ewe I AV
Reese B
o ese v
c
Q y
L �
e�b fayre G
N e�
(bright lid a
c
h'a =
�br• �.
�ghtRa
r
Rd J
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\JD\ArcGIS\Figure6_NWl.mxd
Legend
Project Limits (60.9 ac.)
m
Roads
N
�a
National Wetlands Inventory
® Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
A°
Riverine
REFERENCE: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY DATA PROIVDED BY UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR NORTH CAROLINA, ACCESSED 2018.
BACKGROUND LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2017.
1,000 5OO O 1,000 Feet
T7
Q
SCALE:DATE:
1 inch = 1,000 feet
11/5/2018
National Wetlands Inventory
FIGURE NO.
6
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
Patterson Road
Mecklenburg County
2018-0215
DJZ
CAROLINA
of
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
35.381380, -80.864525
CAG
WETL.ANO 5ERVICES
Huntersville, NC
7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\JD\ArcGIS\Figure6_NWl.mxd

Wetland AA e
DP4 0.012 acre
• DP1
Ole
Wetland CC • DP3 —/�
0.016 acre
Wetland BB
0.026 acre 1 inch = 150 feet
0
Intermittent Stream D
37 If
• •�• • .� S CP5
/ ♦ SCP S
1 inch = 50 feet e
Legend
Project Limits (60.9 ac.)
® Wetland
Intermittent Stream
Roads
Tax Parcels
ODP Data Point
. SCP Stream Classification Point
N Photo Location and Direction
Indicates Flow
Intermittent Stream A
880 If
e ••
Intermittent Stream B
13 If
SC P4♦'
inch25 feet
Intermittent Stream C
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG
COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2018.
64 If
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED
IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND MAPPED USING A SUB -FOOT CAPABLE GPS
500 250 0
500 Feet
UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON AUGUST 2, 2018. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WERE
m
FIELD VERIFIED BYTHE USACE ON JANUARY 18, 2019.
SCALE:DATE:
1 inch = 500 feet
1/31/2019
Jurisdictional Boundaries
FIGURE NO.
Updated January 31, 2019
7
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
Patterson Road
Mecklenburg County
2018-0215
JKM
CAROLINA
of
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
35.381380, -80.864525
CAG
WETL.ANO 5ERVICES
Huntersville, NC
7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\JD\ArcGIS\Figure7_JD.mxd

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Patterson Road Site City/County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 8/2/18
Applicant/Owner: Tracy White/ McDonald Development Company State: NC Sampling Point: DPI
Investigator(s): AVH/DJZ Section, Township, Range: Huntersville
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.381288 Long: -80.862843 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (MO) NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of jurisdictional wetland area AA
HYDROLOGY
Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (66)
X 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 (61) —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 (B3) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
—Algal Mat or Crust (B4) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Ulmus rubra
30
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
25
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
3.
Acer rubrum
25
Yes
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Prunus serotina
10
No
FACU
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
5.
Betula nigra
10
No
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
100
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
50 20%
of total cover:
20
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
Elaeagnus umbellata
30
Yes
UPL
FAC species x 3 =
2.
Ulmus rubra
10
Yes
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
3.
Ulmus alata
10
Yes
FACU
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Liquidambarstyraciflua
10
Yes
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Ligustrum sinense
8
No
FACU
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :-3.0'
68
=Total Cover
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
34 20%
of total cover:
14
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Microstegium vimineum
80
Yes
FAC
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
Betula nigra
10
No
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Celtis laevigata 5 No FACW
4.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
5
No
FACU
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Vitis rotundifolia
5
No
FAC
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6.
Rosa multiflora
5
No
FACU
height.
7.
Ranunculus abortivus
3
No
FACW
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
113
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
57 20%
of total cover:
23
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5'
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20%
of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
75.0% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
_ Histosol (Al)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-2
10YR 3/2
100
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy/Clayey
2-6
10YR 5/1
60
7.5YR 5/6 40 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
6-20
10YR 6/1
60
7.5YR 5/6 40
Loamy/Clayey
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Thick
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Very
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
_Sandy
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data form is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Patterson Road Site City/County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 8/2/18
Applicant/Owner: Tracy White/ McDonald Development Company State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): AVH/DJZ Section, Township, Range: Huntersville
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.381288 Long: -80.862843 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (MO) NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Data point is representative of non -jurisdictional upland area
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (66)
—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 (61) —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 (B4) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Liriodendron tulipifera
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
3. Platanus occidentalis
4. Ulmus rubra
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover: 63
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1. Elaeagnus umbellata
2. Acer rubrum
3. Acer rubrum
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover: 55
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Microstegium vimineum
2. Parthenocissus quinquefolia
3. Rubus arvensis
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Toxicodendron radicans
2. Vitis rotundifolia
3.
4.
5.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicatc
% Cover
Species?
Status
60
Yes
FACU
20
Yes
FAC
15
No
FACW
10
No
FAC
10
No
10
No
125
=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
25
70
Yes
UPL
25
Yes
FAC
15
No
FAC
110 =Total Cover
20% of total cover:
22
30 Yes
FAC
5 No
FACU
5 No
FAC
40 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 8
15 Yes FAC
10 Yes FAC
25 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 13 20% of total cover: 5
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
71.4% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
Sampling Point: DP2
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 71.4% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is :-3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil 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 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
_ Histosol (Al)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-2
10YR 3/2
100
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy/Clayey
2-6
7.5YR 5/6
70
10YR 5/2 30
Loamy/Clayey
6-10
7.5YR 5/6
70
10YR 5/3 30
Loamy/Clayey
10-14
10YR 6/3
60
7.5YR 5/6 40
Loamy/Clayey
14-20
10YR 6/3
65
7.5YR 5/1 35
Loamy/Clayey
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
_Sandy
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
This data form is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Patterson Road Site City/County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 1/21/19
Applicant/Owner: Tracy White/ McDonald Development Company State: NC Sampling Point: DP3
Investigator(s): AVH/DJZ Section, Township, Range: Huntersville
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.382336 Long: -80.861686 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (MO) NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of jurisdictional wetland area BB
HYDROLOGY
Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (66)
X 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 (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP3
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Ulmus rubra
30
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
25
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
3.
Acer rubrum
25
Yes
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Prunus serotina
10
No
FACU
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
5.
Betula nigra
10
No
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
100
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
50 20%
of total cover:
20
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
Elaeagnus umbellata
10
No
UPL
FAC species x 3 =
2.
Ulmus rubra
10
No
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
3.
Ulmus alata
10
No
FACU
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Liquidambarstyraciflua
10
No
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Ligustrum sinense
70
Yes
FACU
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
110
=Total Cover
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
55 20%
of total cover:
22
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Microstegium vimineum
80
Yes
FAC
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
Betula nigra
10
No
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Celtis laevigata 5 No FACW
4.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
5
No
FACU
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Vitis rotundifolia
5
No
FAC
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6.
Rosa multiflora
5
No
FACU
height.
7.
Ranunculus abortivus
3
No
FACW
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
113
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
57 20%
of total cover:
23
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5'
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20%
of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
80% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
_ Histosol (Al)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-2
10YR 3/2
100
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy/Clayey
2-6
10YR 5/1
60
7.5YR 5/6 40 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
6-20
10YR 6/1
60
7.5YR 5/6 40
Loamy/Clayey
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Thick
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Very
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
_Sandy
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data form is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Patterson Road Site City/County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 1/21/19
Applicant/Owner: Tracy White/ McDonald Development Company State: NC Sampling Point: DP4
Investigator(s): AVH/DJZ Section, Township, Range: Huntersville
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.382546 Long: -80.862343 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (MO) NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of jurisdictional wetland area CC
HYDROLOGY
Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (66)
X Surface Water (Al)
_True Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (61)
—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)
X Thin Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
—Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
X Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches): 1
Saturation Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Ulmus rubra
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
3. Fraxinus pennsylvanica
4.
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover: 28
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
2. Ulmus rubra
3.
4.
5. Ligustrum sinense
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover: 18
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Microstegium vimineum
2. Carex lurida
3. Lonicera japonica
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 15
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Toxicodendron radicans
2. Vitis rotundifolia
3.
4.
5.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicatc
% Cover
Species?
Status
15
Yes
FAC
20
Yes
FAC
20
Yes
FACW
55 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 11
10 Yes FAC
25 Yes FACU
35 =Total Cover
20% of total cover:
7
10 Yes
FAC
10 Yes
OBL
10 Yes
FACU
30 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 6
10 Yes FAC
5 Yes FAC
15 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 8 20% of total cover: 3
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
80% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
Sampling Point: DP4
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 10 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is :-3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil 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 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type
Loc
Texture
Remarks
0-7
10YR 4/3
80
7.5YR 4/6 15 C
M
Loamy/Clayey
Prominent redox concentrations
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2.5Y 2.5/1 5 C
M
X Redox Depressions (F8)
Distinct redox concentrations
7-11
10YR 4/3
65
7.5YR 4/6 35 C
M
Loamy/Clayey
Prominent redox concentrations
11-20
10YR 4/3
60
7.5YR 4/6 40 C
M
Loamy/Clayey
Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
Dark Surface (Al2)
X Redox Depressions (F8)
Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Thick
Mucky Mineral (S1)
X Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Very
(Explain in Remarks)
—Sandy
Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Other
_Sandy
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
This data form is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: 812118
Project/Site: Patterson Road
Latitude:
35.381008
Evaluator: DJZ/JDR
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:
-80.862999
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
12.5
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Ephemeral
Other
Stream Name:
SCP1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
6_5
Absent I
Weak Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank*
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
T. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes =
3
`artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
2
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =
3
C. Biology Subtotal =
4
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Notes:
Waterstrider
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: 8/2/18
Project/site: Patterson Road
Latitude:
35.381111
Evaluator: DJZ/JDR
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:
-80.862952
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if Z 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
8
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Ephemeral
Other
Stream Name:
SCP2
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
4_5
Absent
Weak Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank*
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodIain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes =
3
*artfflcial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
1_5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
2
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
12
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: 812118
Project/Site: Patterson Road
Latitude:
35.381211
Evaluator: DJZ/JDR
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:
-80.862877
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
26.75
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Intermittent
Other
Stream Name:
SCP3/Stream A
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
13.5
Absent
Weak Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank*
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
T. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1 1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes =
3
`artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
6_5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No= 0
Yes=
3
C. Biology Subtotal =
6.75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Notes:
Waterstrider
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: 8/2/18
Project/site: Patterson Road
Latitude:
35.381645
Evaluator: DJZ/JDR
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:
-80.862582
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if Z 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
21.75
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Intermittent
Other
Stream Name:
SCP4/Stream B
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
9_5
Absent
Weak Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank*
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodIain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes =
3
*artfflcial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
5_5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No= 0
Yes=
3
C. Biology Subtotal =
6.75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Notes:
W aterstrider
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: 8/2/18
Project/Site: Patterson Road
Latitude:
35.383113
Evaluator: DJZ/JDR
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:
-80.867993
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30'
23.75
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Intermittent
Other
Stream Name:
SCPS/Streams C and D
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
11.5
Absent
Weak Moderate Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank'
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
T. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict flood Iain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 1
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No= 0
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
5_5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No= 0
Yes= 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
6.75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Notes:
Waterstrider
Sketch:

r
S :J • � Z'�S '� =i. moi- � . �[ _
t 3
14
-.f
5
yA _
Li
S
tl
V•
4V:-
h Y - - y 2 r • ....
we
rd
j,

Patterson Road
Photopage
January 31, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
Photograph 3. View of Stream B, facing upstream.
Photograph 4. View of nonjurisidictional stormwater conveyance.
Photopage 2 of 5

Patterson Road
Photopage
January 31, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
Photograph 5. View of nonjurisidictional stormwater conveyance.
Photograph 6. View of Wetland BB, facing southwest.
Photopage 3 of 5

Pkt
I
��t. N�. t �:✓-. .... •4:. :�-. Iii.- r.9;.'' .A�•i�,`y �.. !�
T • .:n { �'�, � .�Y! 411-•: �' ; ,n � � �. �' i� �:.. ] �� -
�c++-- //•+•e f. .;:off
rt3�.
:..
nt
• - ,Y'�,1�'�:. _:� `err � �,� • � V' ..� I I � _ ,�
do
91.
-14•.mx_
"lie r

w _ s�': �vYi�., � r _.�. •' .tis- ..
f ;,S -�. •J�..' ail- .
'isfr-

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
ATTACHMENT C:
NCSAM Form (Stream A & B)

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Patterson Rd
3. Applicant/owner name: McDonald Development Com
5. County: Mecklenburg
7. River basin: Catawba
Date of evaluation: 1/17/19
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5 -minute quad:
Carolina Wetland Services
McDowellCreek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.382480, -80.861016
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream A & B 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 880
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 7 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>- 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
®A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑1 Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
m
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergento
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
YC
❑1
Sand bottom
®C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r Co
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Patterson Rd Date of Assessment
1/17/19
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Carolina Wetland Services
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
ATTACHMENT D:
NCSHPO Response Letter
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
January 4, 2019
Tracy White
McDonald Development Company
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Industrial Development, Hambright Road & Patterson Road, Huntersville, Mecklenburg County,
ER 18-4035
Dear Ms. White:
Thank you for your letter of November 26, 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.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
6A",Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
ATTACHMENT E:
PETS Report
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
March 4, 2019
Tracy White
Senior Vice President
McDonald Development Company
525 N. Tryon Street Suite 1600
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject: Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
Patterson Road (61.9 ac.)
Huntersville, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
Dear Mr. White,
McDonald Development Company has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to
provide a protected species habitat assessment for the Patterson Road site. The project area
includes Mecklenburg County Tax Parcel Nos. 01723315, 01723314, 01723313, 01723302,
01722106, 01722107, and 01722108, totalling approximately 61.9 acres in extent. The project
area is at the intersection of Hambright Road and Patterson Road in Huntersville, North
Carolina (Figure 1).
Methods
In -office Desktop Review
To determine which protected species are listed as occurring or potentially occurring within the
project vicinity and prior to conducting the on-site field investigation, CWS consulted the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Species and Species
of Concern by County for North Carolina online database for Mecklenburg County'. In addition,
CWS performed a data review using the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
Data Explorer on February 26, 2019 to determine if any record occurrences of federally -listed,
candidate endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat are located within the project
limits.
Typical habitat requirements for listed species was discerned from multiple USFWS3 and
NCNHP4 online resources including, but not limited to, specific USFWS species profiles,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office. Accessed February 26, 2019. Endangered and Threatened
Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/mecklenburg.html
2 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2018. Biotics Database. Division of Land and Water Stewardship. Department of
Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina..
3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant
Species. http://www.fws.gov/nces/es/plant_Survey.html. Accessed February 26, 2019.
4 Buchanan, M.F. and J.T. Finnegan. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. NC Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Accessed from https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Page 1 of 8

Patterson Road March 4, 2019
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0215
recovery plans, NCNHP's Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of
North Carolina, and List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web Soil Survey of
Mecklenburg County' and aerial imagery were also reviewed for potential habitat communities
of listed species within the project vicinity (Figures 2 and 3).
Field Survey
CWS scientists Daniel Roberts, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS), Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS,
Dan Zurlo, Staff Scientist II, and Julia McGuire, Staff Scientist I, conducted pedestrian habitat
assessments of the project area on August 2, 2018 and January 21, 2019. Potential habitat for
potentially occurring federally -protected species that was identified during the desktop review
was assessed in the field for the quality of physical and/or biological features essential to the
conservation of the applicable species. Additionally, during the pedestrian habitat assessments,
areas were reviewed for applicable federally protected species; however, formal surveys were
not conducted. Identification references for natural communities include Schafale and
Weakley's Third Approximation for Natural Communities of North Carolina (1990)6 and Weakley
(2015)' for plant species.
Results
Based on the NCNHP data explorer review, there are no current records of federally -protected
species within the project limits or within a mile of the project limits (Attachment A). The
USFWS lists seven federally protected species for Mecklenburg County (Table 1). An official
species list has not been obtained from the USFWS Asheville Field Office.
Table 1. Unofficial List of Federally -Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the
Patterson Site, Mecklenburg County, NC.
Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status"
Record Status
Helianthus
Schweinitz's
Plant
E
Current
schweinitzii
sunflower
Plant
Echinacea
Smooth Coneflower
E
Current
laevigata
Plant
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Current
Animal
Bombus affinis
Rusty -patched
E
Historic
bumblebee
Lasmigona
Animal
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Current
decorata
Animal
Myotis
Northern long-eared
T
Current
septentrionalis
bat
Animal
Haliaeetus
Bald eagle
BGPA
Current
leucocephalus
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
United States Department of Agriculture, 2017. Web Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. February 26, 2019.
Source: https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
s Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation.
http://ww.namethatplant.net/PDFs/class.pdf.
Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm.
Page 2 of 8

Patterson Road
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
March 4, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
Four terrestrial community types were identified within the project area during the field survey.
These community types consist of deciduous forest, mixed forest, woody wetlands, and
maintained herbaceous areas (Figure 3). Of the identified on-site community types, the
maintained herbaceous areas and ecotonal boundary areas between the herbaceous and
forested areas could be considered potential habitat for federally threatened or endangered
species listed in Mecklenburg County. A brief description of each species habitat requirements
and determination of effect findings are listed by species.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Habitat Description:
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb with yellow rays and yellow centers. They
can reach heights of five feet. Populations are limited to the piedmont of North and
South Carolina. It has been listed as an Endangered species under the ESA since
1991.8 The typical habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission
line right-of-ways, open areas, either natural or human -maintained habitats, or edges of
upland woods. Major characteristics of soils associated with suitable Schweinitz's
sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes,
soils that are clay -like in both composition and texture (and often with substantial rock
fragments), soils that have a high shrinkage swell capacity, and those which vary over
the course of the year from very wet to very dry.
Biological Analysis:
A NCNHP data record review revealed that there are no current occurrences for this
species within the project limits, or within a one -mile radius of the project (Attachment A).
The desktop review determined that areas throughout the site within the ecotonal
regions between forested and open areas contained proper soils and slopes for
Schweinitz's sunflower (Figures 1 and 2). These areas warranted a field investigation to
determine whether they could be potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower. The field
investigation revealed that these areas were too highly maintained by frequent mowing,
fertilization, and use of pesticides to be considered potential habitat (Attachment B,
Photograph 1 and 2). No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower or other Helianthus
species were observed during the field assessment on August 2, 2018, and supportive
habitat was not present, which leads CWS to conclude that this project will not affect
the Schweinitz's sunflower.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevi__ acLta)
Habitat Description:
Smooth coneflower is a tall, perennial herbaceous plant found in areas with abundant
sunlight where competition in the herbaceous layer is minimal. It has been federally
listed as Endangered under the ESA since 1992.9 Typical habitat for this plant includes
meadows, open woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands,
8 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Helianthus schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower) Determined to be Endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/frl852.pdf.
9 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Echinacea laevigata (Smooth
Coneflower) Determined to be Endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/fed era l_register/fr2140.pdf.
Page 3 of 8

Patterson Road
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
March 4, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
cedar barrens, dry limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility rights-of-way. In
North Carolina, the species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium- rich soils
associated with gabbro and diabase parent material, and typically occurs in Iredell,
Misenheimer, and Picture soil series. Smooth coneflower grows best where there is
abundant sunlight, little competition in the herbaceous layer, and periodic disturbances
(e.g., regular fire regime, well-timed mowing, careful clearing) that prevents
encroachment of shade -producing woody shrubs and trees. On sites where woody
succession is held in check, it is characterized by a number of species with prairie
affinities.
Biological Analysis:
A NCNHP data record review revealed that there are no current occurrences for this
species within the project limits, or within a one -mile radius of the project (Attachment A).
Potential on site habitat for this species is limited to the maintained areas and forest
edges throughout the property. There are soils on-site with diabase or gabbro parent
material, however, these areas are covered by dense deciduous forest, which is not
conducive to coneflower habitat (Photograph 2 and 3; Figures 2 and 3). No individuals
of smooth coneflower or the Echinacea species were observed during the field
assessment on August 2, 2018, and supportive habitat was not present, which leads
CWS to conclude that this project will not affect the smooth coneflower.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Habitat Description:
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous shrub. It is densely hairy with compound leaves
exhibiting evenly -serrated leaflets. Flowers are small, greenish to white, in terminal
clusters. Fruits are red drupes produced from August to October. Michaux's sumac has
been listed as an Endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since
1989.10 It is found on the coastal plains of Virginia to Florida, with most populations
occurring in North Carolina. Michaux's sumac prefers sandy or rocky open woods with
basic soils, as well as, highway right-of-ways, roadsides, or edges of
artificially -maintained clearings.
Biological Analysis:
A NCNHP data record review revealed that there are no current occurrences for this
species. A NCNHP data record review revealed that there are no current occurrences for
this species within the project limits, or within a one -mile radius of the project
(Attachment A). On-site soils are slightly acidic and are not optimal for Michaux's
sumac. Additionally, though open areas conducive to early -succession species are
present in the project area, these areas consist of acidic Cecil and Enon soils and are
highly maintained by frequent mowing, which is not suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac
(Photograph 1 and 2; Figures 2 and 3). Finally, the USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services
Field Office states in its Michaux's sumac profile page that the species is considered
historic in Mecklenburg County." Due to the lack of habitat and known occurrences,
CWS concludes that this project will not affect Michaux's sumac.
0 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered
Status for Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac). http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federaI_register/fr1601.pdf.
Page 4 of 8

Patterson Road March 4, 2019
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0215
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
Habitat Description:
The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations within the
Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and Savannah
River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system in South Carolina. In North
Carolina, the species is now known only from a handful of streams in the Pee Dee and
Catawba River systems. The species exists in very low abundances, usually within 6
feet of shorelines, throughout its known range. The general habitat requirements for the
Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed
into clay banks between the root systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with
moderate current. Recently, the Carolina heelsplitter has been found is in sections of
streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices filled with sand and gravel, and
with wide riparian buffers."
Biological Analysis
A pedestrian foot survey conducted on August 2, 2018 revealed no perennial streams
within the study area (Photograph 4). As no streams with requisite flow regimes exist
on-site, no habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter is present. Due to the lack of habitat,
CWS concludes that this project will not affect the Carolina heelsplitter.
Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis)
The Rusty patched bumble bee was listed as Endangered under the ESA in January 2017.12
Rusty patched bumble bees once occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies of the Upper
Midwest and Northeast, but most grasslands and prairies have been lost, degraded, or
fragmented by conversion to other uses. According to USFWS guidance, "the rusty patched
bumble bee is likely to be present in scattered locations that cover only about 0.1 % of the
species' historical range. It is within these limited areas USFWS recommend that federal
agencies and others consider the need to consult with the Service on the potential effects of
their actions or the potential need for an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B). For
the remaining 99.9% of the historical range, USFWS advise agencies and others that this
bumble bee is not likely to be present and that consultations or incidental take coverage is not
necessary."13 According to USFWS' Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Interactive Map, Mecklenburg
County is not within the 0.1 % historical range as no high potential zones or low potential zones
are present within Mecklenburg County. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect the
rusty -patched bumble bee.
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is one of the species of bats most impacted by the
white -nose syndrome disease. Summer habitat (roosting habitat) of the NLEB includes forests
and woodlots containing live trees and/or dead snags greater than three inches diameter at
11 NCDOT TE Animal Habitat Descriptions. 2015
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/Compliance%20Guides%20and%20Procedures/TE%2OAnimal°/`2OHabitat%
20Descriptions%2OMar_6_2015.pdf
12 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/index.html
13 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/index.html
Page 5 of 8

Patterson Road March 4, 2019
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0215
breast height with cavities or crevices. Winter habitat (hibernacula) of the NLEB includes caves,
mines, rocky areas, or structures that mimic similar conditions such as culverts greater than
48 -inch in diameter.14 The NLEB was listed as Threatened (T) on April 2, 2015.
The forested areas within the property are potential habitats for the NLEB. A Standard Local
Operating Procedure for Endangered Species Act Compliance (SLOPES) was established for
NLEB between the USFWS Asheville and Raleigh Ecological Offices and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, on January 31, 2017.15 This SLOPES
defines how the USACE will make determinations of effect to the NLEB on projects in which the
USACE is the lead federal agency. Alternative Local Procedure 1 (ALP 1) applies for the
McDowell site as the action area is within range of the NLEB,16 the action area is located
outside of a red 12 -digit HUC as defined by the Asheville Ecological Services Field Office," and
consultation by the USACE is required on other listed species or critical habitat.
The final 4(d) rule exempts incidental take of NLEB associated with activities that occur greater
than 0.25 miles from a known hibernaculum site and greater than 150 feet from a known,
occupied maternity roost from June 1 -July 31. In accordance with ALP 1 and the final 4(d) rule
(effective as of February 16, 2016), any incidental take that may result from associated activities
is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Therefore, this project is exempt under the 4(d) rule.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,18 enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone, without a
permit issued, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. Habitat for the
bald eagle includes cliffs and forested areas typically within 1.0 mile of estuaries, large lakes,
reservoirs, rivers, seacoast, and as they become more abundant, stands of undisturbed forest.
A desktop -GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1 mile radius
of the project limits, was performed on April 3, 2018 using 2017 color aerials. Mountain Island
Lake is within 1 mile of the Phase 1 study area. A survey of the project study area and the area
within the project limits was conducted. No eagles or raptors nests were observed on-site, and
the site does not contain suitable eagle habitat. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database
on April 3, 2018 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project
study area. Due to the lack of habitat and known occurrences, CWS concludes that this
project will not affect this species.
Determinations
Based on the literature search and the results of the on-site assessment for suitable habitat of
federally -protected endangered, threatened, and candidate species, suitable habitat was not
observed within the project limits for any of the species that could potentially occur. Additionally,
based on the project area location, no tree removal activities will occur within a 150 -foot radius
of a known, occupied NLEB maternity roost from June 1 -July 31, and no trees will be removed
within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at any time of year. Therefore, any incidental take
14 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long -Eared Bat; Final rule.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-14/pdf/2016-00617.pdf
15 USACE http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf
16 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
17 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. Northern Long -Eared Bat.
18 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/eaglepermits/bagepa.html
Page 6 of 8

Patterson Road
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
March 4, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
on NLEB that may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule and
notifications will follow the SLOPES agreement19. Biological determinations requirements for
federally protected species are summarized in Table 2 (below).
Table 2. Biological Determination Requirements Summar Table for Federally Protected Species
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGEPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
** - Required in accordance with SLOPES, ALP 1 agreement.
19 http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB_in_WNC.html
Page 7 of 8
Federal
Effect on Listed
Biological
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status*
Species
Determination
Required
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Will Not Affect
No
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Will Not Affect
No
Echinacea laevigata
Smooth coneflower
E
Will Not Affect
No
Lasmigona decorata
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Will Not Affect
No
Bombus affinis
Rusty patched bumblebee
E
Will Not Affect
No
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
T
Exempt/Excepted
Yes**
Haliaeetus
Bald eagle
BGEPA
Will Not Affect
No
leucocephalus
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGEPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
** - Required in accordance with SLOPES, ALP 1 agreement.
19 http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB_in_WNC.html
Page 7 of 8

Patterson Road
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
March 4, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
A biological assessment was not conducted for this project. All biological determinations of
effect represent the best professional opinion of CWS and are not official determinations of
effect. It is the responsibility of the lead federal agency to render an official determination of
effect. Should the lead federal agency agree with CWS's initial findings of no effect, then no
USFWS consultation is required to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Should the lead federal agency's determination of effect differ from the findings of CWS, formal
or informal consultation with USFWS may be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services on this important project. Please do not
hesitate to contact Sean Martin at 828-719-1320 or [e-mail] should you have any
questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Y6�� 0 CJ7 A
Sean Martin
Senior Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1: USGS Site Location
Christine A. Geist, PWS, CE
Consulting Group Manager
Figure 2: Current USDA-NRCS Soil Map of Mecklenburg County
Figure 3: Aerial Imagery
Attachment A: NCNHP Data Review Report
Attachment B: Representative Photographs (1-4)
Page 8 of 8

or ren Cv Creek
ns
ad R�
v�la{p
?
rr'
Project Limits (61.9 ac.)
ofl
1
2,000 1,000 0
2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): CORNELIUS, NC (2017), DERITA, NC (2017),
LAKE NORMAN SOUTH, NC (2017), AND
MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE, NC (2017).
Branch Grro — .
SCALE:DATE:
1 inch = 2,000 feet
2
�4
USGS Topographic Map
�-
FIGURE NO.
1
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
iorrnncv
,•� Kr5
•
2018-0215
DJZ
-
rn,kloi e
of
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
CAROLINA
i
rtx ay
35.381380, -80.864525
CAG
WETLANo SERVICES
Huntersville, NC
3
An
+d R,1 111• ��
e, ,l•
>.5�:1 Vd ¢j
s
3
�
�
�"Ilk
S•
;�
;4e
ie.5 Ln
va r+s!ory
[fr
�a
a 6
r
a
ti �'• \ '7yb !! E
O $
N
e Ram°� v
� •S
n Y F
a
4
a 1.
y t�en;e5� a 2� V
haw
TarMra O[
z1: yn5
pt—e 80.q
F
�C
AI
HYnArwlt�
L AN 1 -k Lbmmvnry
Palk
f fi; 4v
*L C}
i
Gal ['•i crh 8x91!
d:"T 4k �urdera l4] fiC
".�4e.k
f
Pry wr\a A - j
cs \ a
YPr W'1Y � i
V Nair,t�r}i+t ltd
941hv
Er�xan
;1
pEw
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\PETS\ArcGIS\Figure1_USGS.mxd
ns
Legend
?
rr'
Project Limits (61.9 ac.)
ofl
1
2,000 1,000 0
2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): CORNELIUS, NC (2017), DERITA, NC (2017),
LAKE NORMAN SOUTH, NC (2017), AND
MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE, NC (2017).
Branch Grro — .
SCALE:DATE:
1 inch = 2,000 feet
2/26/2019
USGS Topographic Map
FIGURE NO.
1
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
•
2018-0215
DJZ
Patterson Rd
of
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
CAROLINA
Mecklenburg County
35.381380, -80.864525
CAG
WETLANo SERVICES
Huntersville, NC
3
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\PETS\ArcGIS\Figure1_USGS.mxd

D2 k eB
eB CeD2 — B Me
e
kE k
WkE WkB WkE
CeD2 MeB
' Pt
W k
En
WkB
Ce92
CeD2
PaE
CeB2
WkE
VaB W
eD2
EnB
Ir EnD k
EnB
W
VaB
HeB
CeD2
VaB
HeB
WkB HeB
VaB
EnB
EnB
WkE
MeB En
MO
HeB
mflzsv�- 211 Legend
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded No, 69.7
CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded No 5.9 EnB
EnB Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 3.8 J Project Limits (60.9 ac. )
EnD Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 7.5
MO Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Yes 0.4 Roads
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 12.8
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC, DATED 2013.
eB
SCALE: 1 inch = 1,000 feet 2/26/2019 DATE: USDA-NRCS Current Soil FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: Survey of Mecklenburg County 2
2018-0215 DJZ Patterson Rd of
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.381380, -80.864525 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Huntersville, NC 3
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\PETSWrcGIS\Figure2_CurrentSoil.mxd

G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0215 Patterson Rd\PETS\ArcGIS\Figure3_Aerial.mxd

P,
t tt tt 1� 1`I t 1111 t t \I7 11 ♦ ♦ 1 t1-► ♦ t ♦ tt51515,5111111
t ♦ ♦ ♦ 1..I'7 ♦ t♦ t♦ 1 1'I ♦t ♦ ♦ 1..'7 ♦ 1 \'I11111110
♦ t ♦ ♦ 11111
♦ \`I t♦ ♦ t \7 11t 1'I \'I \-► ♦ t ♦♦ 1 1 \'7 ♦ ♦ 1 1 1 \'I tl'/t ♦ \ / F',
t 11 ♦ ♦1'I ♦t
I�l�ll 111.��11��11,!ll IIN.�fQ�llllhll P, "I 11111����1 11111111�,N1111►1111,!,Il I Iiviloll,�ll lr,DIIlll,!►10111,11 11111011111P,11 1"i1►11 P,i55 P, "I'll IP,l 15,55 F, 11 11 II 1!.�111111►11,�1111►,111.1�1�l1111,111F�1►,!1111.��11 I�N11
011111 l 'kill 1111R11,11111
11111.1 ���1111�� i�11�11;'r',►111 lily
►:IP,t"II►JhII►J► ►IIIIIIIIIIII1►11111►1►% 111111►11111111:1►.5111164111►;�1 I I►; i 111►% I►%� 5111lI1 i1►`,q1L� ►1►11►1IE�;1►1►%►1►:11i ;I►:Q: 121:' atl►';I►:11," I aM
►:4►:I►:1I►�I►�I►:1I►:11►i1►:,I►:1I►:o;�il►:4►�I►:4►:11►�I►:Q►: �1.1►��►�, �IE�31:�a1►►%':1►51►:I:. �1►���1►►I►:iI►:11►';4►:1►%►1►:�;►�a►:Il;�;il►::IE�,1:11►:;�:I►: X1:1
. t„ 'I
. ,n,. t,1 .. PO M1 ♦11♦t. 11. . 11 •t tml . . ,xl♦t •t . . ad♦t t.♦ . .. 1'{¢ . . ♦t .,. ♦. . ,I , .I 1nft F,, ,'I
. ♦♦��, �,.. ...
.�►��u��������i��������i����„���ii►�o�►�w�i�►o.i►iii„���►u��ii�i����i�iiui�i�ii�i��iii���i�i�i a�.���ii�����i�����i�i�i���i�ai��ii��i���a��������i��i�a���i�.a�,,����iiiii►�������i���i��i������i�i����i��������� ����i�� a�ii��� ��������i�
1►01►1I:Q:QE1516""IN :15
11MIMMM
WHIMIMIM,
HUENEME TMMM
MMEMMMMM TERM
ME
MEN MM
IN
RMMNMMMww
ME ME
NNE
ERMINE
►:4►:I►:1I►�I►�I►:1I►:11►i1►:,I►:1I►:o;�il►:4►�I►:4►:11►�I►:Q►: �1.1►��►�, �IE�31:�a1►►%':1►51►:I:. �1►���1►►I►:iI►:11►';4►:1►%►1►:�;►�a►:Il;�;il►::IE�,1:11►:;�:I►: X1:1
. t„ 'I
. ,n,. t,1 .. PO M1 ♦11♦t. 11. . 11 •t tml . . ,xl♦t •t . . ad♦t t.♦ . .. 1'{¢ . . ♦t .,. ♦. . ,I , .I 1nft F,, ,'I
. ♦♦��, �,.. ...
.�►��u��������i��������i����„���ii►�o�►�w�i�►o.i►iii„���►u��ii�i����i�iiui�i�ii�i��iii���i�i�i a�.���ii�����i�����i�i�i���i�ai��ii��i���a��������i��i�a���i�.a�,,����iiiii►�������i���i��i������i�i����i��������� ����i�� a�ii��� ��������i�
1►01►1I:Q:QE1516""IN :15

NCNHDE-8338: Patterson Rd
Old Ban,ede?� xC� yNgp no-
5� UN ��oxe Pp'e
014
hn
","11nn ]mm cx°a4
r
x s eaY
I r
It
ee
c\ya
2
a
�a
�a
15' °
796 R
O` p'
z
Pr
Ra
O
A
F
�A,do Ln
February 26, 2019
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
IIIIIII.V;11 F, i 51►1: 12
Center
Reese e1�d
n
8P9 rI ,,�, Orn xHrx'cr:a
Cia. ery O
0
G"91yp 2g ��`
ewe Lab N.—
ch-
05
°rmancnadarCh T°k
`117
t;a!nsOn Or '
O
N
3
828 R % J.M o
s AMnndar 836 R
hWdW
fi
HambrgM Rd
etyma
Ekmenbry
_1J
—1
M .rin ,
Alexanderana Rn II.
Sam Raper O`
1:24,108
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.325 0.65 1.3 km
Sources: Earl, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), —sstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and
the GIS User Community

Patterson Road
Attachment B: Photopage
March 4, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
Photograph 1. View of maintained herbaceous area.
Photograph 2. View of ecotonal area at the boundary of the forested and herbaceous area.
Photopage 1 of 2

Patterson Road
Attachment B: Photopage
March 4, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
Photograph 3. View of Intermittent Stream A, facing downstream.
Photograph 4. View of forested cover of areas with soils made up of diabase/gabbro parent
material.
Photopage 2 of 2

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
ATTACHMENT F:
NCNHP Letter
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215

P,
t tt tt 1� 1`I t 1111 t t \I7 11 ♦ ♦ 1 t1-► ♦ t ♦ tt51515,5111111
t ♦ ♦ ♦ 1..I'7 ♦ t♦ t♦ 1 1'I ♦t ♦ ♦ 1..'7 ♦ 1 \'I11111110
♦ t ♦ ♦ 11111
♦ \`I t♦ ♦ t \7 11t 1'I \'I \-► ♦ t ♦♦ 1 1 \'7 ♦ ♦ 1 1 1 \'I tl'/t ♦ \ / F',
t 11 ♦ ♦1'I ♦t
I�l�ll 111.��11��11,!ll IIN.�fQ�llllhll P, "I 11111����1 11111111�,N1111►1111,!,Il I Iiviloll,�ll lr,DIIlll,!►10111,11 11111011111P,11 1"i1►11 P,i55 P, "I'll IP,l 15,55 F, 11 11 II 1!.�111111►11,�1111►,111.1�1�l1111,111F�1►,!1111.��11 I�N11
011111 l 'kill 1111R11,11111
11111.1 ���1111�� i�11�11;'r',►111 lily
►:IP,t"II►JhII►J► ►IIIIIIIIIIII1►11111►1►% 111111►11111111:1►.5111164111►;�1 I I►; i 111►% I►%� 5111lI1 i1►`,q1L� ►1►11►1IE�;1►1►%►1►:11i ;I►:Q: 121:' atl►';I►:11," I aM
►:4►:I►:1I►�I►�I►:1I►:11►i1►:,I►:1I►:o;�il►:4►�I►:4►:11►�I►:Q►: �1.1►��►�, �IE�31:�a1►►%':1►51►:I:. �1►���1►►I►:iI►:11►';4►:1►%►1►:�;►�a►:Il;�;il►::IE�,1:11►:;�:I►: X1:1
. t„ 'I
. ,n,. t,1 .. PO M1 ♦11♦t. 11. . 11 •t tml . . ,xl♦t •t . . ad♦t t.♦ . .. 1'{¢ . . ♦t .,. ♦. . ,I , .I 1nft F,, ,'I
. ♦♦��, �,.. ...
.�►��u��������i��������i����„���ii►�o�►�w�i�►o.i►iii„���►u��ii�i����i�iiui�i�ii�i��iii���i�i�i a�.���ii�����i�����i�i�i���i�ai��ii��i���a��������i��i�a���i�.a�,,����iiiii►�������i���i��i������i�i����i��������� ����i�� a�ii��� ��������i�
1►01►1I:Q:QE1516""IN :15
11MIMMM
WHIMIMIM,
HUENEME TMMM
MMEMMMMM TERM
ME
MEN MM
IN
RMMNMMMww
ME ME
NNE
ERMINE
►:4►:I►:1I►�I►�I►:1I►:11►i1►:,I►:1I►:o;�il►:4►�I►:4►:11►�I►:Q►: �1.1►��►�, �IE�31:�a1►►%':1►51►:I:. �1►���1►►I►:iI►:11►';4►:1►%►1►:�;►�a►:Il;�;il►::IE�,1:11►:;�:I►: X1:1
. t„ 'I
. ,n,. t,1 .. PO M1 ♦11♦t. 11. . 11 •t tml . . ,xl♦t •t . . ad♦t t.♦ . .. 1'{¢ . . ♦t .,. ♦. . ,I , .I 1nft F,, ,'I
. ♦♦��, �,.. ...
.�►��u��������i��������i����„���ii►�o�►�w�i�►o.i►iii„���►u��ii�i����i�iiui�i�ii�i��iii���i�i�i a�.���ii�����i�����i�i�i���i�ai��ii��i���a��������i��i�a���i�.a�,,����iiiii►�������i���i��i������i�i����i��������� ����i�� a�ii��� ��������i�
1►01►1I:Q:QE1516""IN :15

NCNHDE-8338: Patterson Rd
Old Ban,ede?� xC� yNgp no-
5� UN ��oxe Pp'e
014
hn
","11nn ]mm cx°a4
r
x s eaY
I r
It
ee
c\ya
2
a
�a
�a
15' °
796 R
O` p'
z
Pr
Ra
O
A
F
�A,do Ln
February 26, 2019
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
IIIIIII.V;11 F, i 51►1: 12
Center
Reese e1�d
n
8P9 rI ,,�, Orn xHrx'cr:a
Cia. ery O
0
G"91yp 2g ��`
ewe Lab N.—
ch-
05
°rmancnadarCh T°k
`117
t;a!nsOn Or '
O
N
3
828 R % J.M o
s AMnndar 836 R
hWdW
fi
HambrgM Rd
etyma
Ekmenbry
_1J
—1
M .rin ,
Alexanderana Rn II.
Sam Raper O`
1:24,108
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.325 0.65 1.3 km
Sources: Earl, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), —sstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and
the GIS User Community

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
ATTACHMENT G:
Concept Plan
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215

--
- T
PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING 400
*191,400 SF
8 _
EX 30' ?OST
\\ CONSTRUCTION BUFFER
\\ /I
L
5
's
s
® BOHLER
ENGINEERING NC, PLLC
NCBELS P-1132
19275. TRYPHONE 5980 22.3400 UITE FAX: CHARLOTTE,10 980 272,301C 20203
THE NF0Nwm0N,DESIDNANDOJMENi0 i lSP NAR PRDPRIE ANDSHULNDiBECa IEDDRUSEDFCRANY
PURPOSE__
URPOSE PIANS BNALL BE UiILIiEiD FORCONSlH_oNPURp.EBE®BOHLDERLENGINEERNG520 NEDAND SEALED
FULL POTENTIAL BUILD -OUT
PATTERSON ROAD
HUNTERSVILLE, N.C. I CONCEPT PLAN
r/
1
I
/
EX USGS BLUE /
LINE STREAM
A/
� I
EX 00"MOU100 6S 0 1
PA BUFFER EROM PERENNGIL / /
USCS BLUE LINA STREAM /
/
/ 1
/
/ I
/ EX USCS BLUE
/ LINE STREAM
/
' / I
/
' 1
02/11/20191 NCC182042 CONCEPT F
N
W 100 . 25 0 100
r=1oo
S

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
ATTACHMENT H:
Alternative Site Plan No. 1
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215

11 cl -1`\ 1 r �---_-___ -=—.Q, awl//f; • ; ; I ; /
1 1 1 1 1 �"—ZONfO.• CBIS rr l I I ;
i
,�Irl�llrl `.
I 1111 `\I
Sr IiA�
I 1 1 1 \ \ \
�`.20NER CI(CZ)
S3 Stream D
k�, 36 linear feet '
i \\AIED, C8
M'
/ r Z WI PARLELIMPACT TABLE
_ ��
------ 10VERNFAO TOWERS 11 I �—' i i
I J YA
PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL St BUILDING 400
±191,400 SF S.`
FFE:±801.20'
St
PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRI LBUILDING II
POST FF 12
vMV
SSL
I Nk FEMUR£ ZONER C8 ,
1\
S4 Stream C SSL RA /
47 linear feet - P� LIGHT IG 200 �At�
''� m BUILDING 200 SC
85,860 SF
_____ FFE: ±796.00'
4I7.00•
_J
ZONED.- C6
486
PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING 100
±105,600 SF
FFE:±799.00'
/ 1
st
If
GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) "
0 100 200 400 600 800
% l , , ZONED.• CB
S 698 If ¢ w
1:
/ z2�
S2: 13 If -J ,—
S3: 36 If \\ ��
S4: 47 If
Total Stream Impacts: 794 If v
W1: 0.001 ac
W2: 0.02 ac 111 11
ZONED._• M
W2 Wetland BB Total Wetland Impacts: 0.021 ac
�'-"- 0.02 acres, ; ;
moi/
W1 Wetland Cu �; �;-''; % ;%;- ----- �;' ;' ;' / I
' 0,001 acres
/ Q
I /
Stream B '7',' i /'" "", 'i' /,i i / EX. 30'POSF—'''�/''/
, , , / CONS7R(k'IX%Y Bl/FfER "'
sr.US-G./
Q9
RSVN,
ZE.• B13 linear feet =C
o
/MERMMEil7 Q
(PER CWS ' / I ( l �' ---- / /' /' / /� i / i , CFS z
MhWA
)i / j ; i 1 / I / / —J'/ / , �/ ,i i viii / LLj z
l W JLu
5
} -� 1\ — a— \ ) ( 1�`�_ \`✓ it ; i l i I \� � � Lu
Lu
St 1 ' MOUMAIN /BLOND [AKE I ; / \ 1
l I l r, l l I A BUFFER fRldll PERENNNL
\S(
fX.
RE575AM
./ mNED.• W,,,'
1111%T INDUSTRIAL
BUI
_210,000 SF
FFE: 786.00 SL
PARCEL: x17.17 ACRES
216, 100
-216,000
SF
FFE: 786.00
EL: ±13.40 ACRES
�sL
\S(
St
Sr.
/
/ RES49EN71AL
i ZONEQ• CB
,
i
I
(/SGS BLUE UNE BREW \ I ) ) 10 ) 1
,SEWFR7TEllH4US C
E49MENTr740105 I 1
1 1 \\` II IIX OFF7C 11 ` 1
• CB 1
IX. BLUE
LW ISI II;III ' / `\' / C
I\ v/ W
CP U:)
W
LU co
/
W
1/ S1 Stream A
698 linear feet
\k, 1\ \I 1` \
\` SHEET
I fX. YAGN7\
1 ZOAED CB

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
ATTACHMENT I:
Alternative Site Plan No. 2
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215

/ __ -
` - __
-170--
-------------- 772 _------ _ .. �A
--'--__-------774- " __"-- -776_-_
_.778-______/_:I�-="�!
��.
-------
IG�ITR�
\
f=' ;
J J
,-,
---------------
_ - '"'- ; /' _------ 714 ---"-"
BU161Nfr��1j
'R
766-------------
`
880---'
'
\"
79
/ -
r I
/
:792-_--
111111''1' \
A �I
I/� \
''I �••.
I II
; � ` `;` `\�
!
yo
III'
-
W2: 0.026 ac permanent fill
782
Total Permanent Wetland Impacts: 0.042 ac
/776
7I
, _ _ ------------__ /
_ _------__-
____:' 111/11 ' _
-_ _ 7
_ __
/
- —� S3 (Stream A)
/ __ -
` - __
-170--
-------------- 772 _------ _ .. �A
--'--__-------774- " __"-- -776_-_
_.778-______/_:I�-="�!
-------
IG�ITR�
„___
-----------------
_ - -
"-
f=' ;
_—_780---
_
-_782----- __-----
,-,
---------------
_ - '"'- ; /' _------ 714 ---"-"
BU161Nfr��1j
'R
766-------------
`
880---'
'
\"
79
/ -
r I
/
:792-_--
'-----_
-__• _
794
9ry,
______-
yo
-796---------------
796-
-
W2: 0.026 ac permanent fill
782
Total Permanent Wetland Impacts: 0.042 ac
/776
7I
, _ _ ------------__ /
_ _------__-
____:' 111/11 ' _
-_ _ 7
\ ------
'
-----------------
\ PROPA1gHT INDUSTRIAL
\
- - -
BUILDING 400 \ *191,400 SF------
FFE:±801 20'
------
- 870a.
PROP. LIGHT INDUS
BUILDING 100
±88,200 SF
FFE:±799.00'
I COD / eep
1 I
I I
890
e
I
------------
r
�zPo�Po f
/
r _ W2 (Wetland BB)
" 0.026 ac fill impact
W1 Wetland CC
0.016 ac fill impact
a S2 Stream B
13 If fill impact
S1 Stream A
e
1
9
603 If fill impact
7
1e'
- -
`� --- —
-------
IG�ITR�
IMPACT TABLE
�PROP. US`fRIAC,
'
NOT APPROVED FOR
CONSTRUCTION
------------
BU161Nfr��1j
'R
`
\
-
\"
S3: 20 If temporary fill
_
Total Permanent Stream Impacts: 616 If
••
-__• _
---__
;
9ry,
,
yo
W1: 0.016 ac permanent fill
�zPo�Po f
/
r _ W2 (Wetland BB)
" 0.026 ac fill impact
W1 Wetland CC
0.016 ac fill impact
a S2 Stream B
13 If fill impact
S1 Stream A
e
1
9
603 If fill impact
7
1e'
- -
`� --- —
/¢fGH�
IMPACT TABLE
�PROP. US`fRIAC,
'
NOT APPROVED FOR
CONSTRUCTION
/
.III I I1I
BU161Nfr��1j
'R
S1: 603 If permanent fill
`
S2: 13 If permanent fill
\"
S3: 20 If temporary fill
SCALE: 1"=100'
SA E:.:
Total Permanent Stream Impacts: 616 If
Total Stream Impacts: 636 If
9ry,
,
yo
W1: 0.016 ac permanent fill
W2: 0.026 ac permanent fill
782
Total Permanent Wetland Impacts: 0.042 ac
/776
7I
, _ _ ------------__ /
_ _------__-
____:' 111/11 ' _
-_ _ 7
_ __
/
- —� S3 (Stream A)
�1 :4 s
a
a
W04
is
�z
z
O W
z
0
�z
w
IREVISIONS
IRINI DATE I COMMENT I BV
�W�.TLAND,-7�REA
' SOELa�AT/0 C' ' �XOi30B"UPFGF)Ei'RT E_X L_lJ(NSEG'.S3'TRB�CAUfM-
;; "T 2;T/T 0 If fill impact •
�y
Z",
Y �X YJSCS pt.
/¢fGH�
KNOW WHATS BELOW
�PROP. US`fRIAC,
'
NOT APPROVED FOR
CONSTRUCTION
/
.III I I1I
BU161Nfr��1j
'R
PROJECT No.: NCC182042
DRAN/N BV: RB
`
CHECI(ED BY: DH
AR EL: k17.j 17.17A
DATE: 3/12/2019
SCALE: 1"=100'
SA E:.:
CH -Pref
050.
,
r
-804 L-
-80
PROD, LIGHT I DUISTRI L
_
BUILBIN 500'`, ------------------
±16,000
FFE:786.0
1
,
-
8p0
n
788 ,r
% ,-'PARCEL±13.40A(1(iE9', _ --_--------
-
LOD-��
>ee �
------------
, - -
J
y6
�_____'
"
� _ _____
--
790
-- 1g8,
-"
1g6
-----
�y
Z",
Y �X YJSCS pt.
PROJECT: PROP.
SITE PLAN
DOCUMENTS
FOR
MCDONALD
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION OF SITE
PATTERSON ROAD
HUNTERSVILLE, NC
'1 i �Ig f t✓ BOHLER
�'/ I I '; 1�I u ',`` �\ ` ,``� ,1 I ■ ENGINEERING NC, PLLC
1827 S. TRYON STREET, SUITE 310
o / CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
l 111 li I I Phone: [phone]
//TT \\\•,��' `" 111','1`' I Faz: [phone]
NC@BohleiEng.-.
:'.y�';
�` •.• �'�, `, '`� SHEET TIRE:
LL
\ ' ` SITE PLAT
-------- ---
SHEET NUMBER
KNOW WHATS BELOW
ALWAYS CALL 811
BEFORE YOU DIG
Its fast. It's free. It, the law.
NOT APPROVED FOR
CONSTRUCTION
/
.III I I1I
I` J
I
PROJECT No.: NCC182042
DRAN/N BV: RB
`
CHECI(ED BY: DH
DATE: 3/12/2019
SCALE: 1"=100'
SA E:.:
CH -Pref
PROJECT: PROP.
SITE PLAN
DOCUMENTS
FOR
MCDONALD
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION OF SITE
PATTERSON ROAD
HUNTERSVILLE, NC
'1 i �Ig f t✓ BOHLER
�'/ I I '; 1�I u ',`` �\ ` ,``� ,1 I ■ ENGINEERING NC, PLLC
1827 S. TRYON STREET, SUITE 310
o / CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
l 111 li I I Phone: [phone]
//TT \\\•,��' `" 111','1`' I Faz: [phone]
NC@BohleiEng.-.
:'.y�';
�` •.• �'�, `, '`� SHEET TIRE:
LL
\ ' ` SITE PLAT
-------- ---
SHEET NUMBER

Patterson Road - NWP #39
Attachments
ATTACHMENT J:
NCDMS ILF Approval Letter
April 8, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0215

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Tracy White
McDonald Development Company
525 N. Tryon Street Suite 1600
Charlotte, NC 28202
Project: Patterson Road
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
April 3, 2019
Expiration of Acceptance: 10/3/2019
County: Mecklenburg
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin Impact Location Impact Type Impact Quantity
_(8 -digit HUG
Catawba 03050101 Warm Stream 616 j
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and
15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Sean Martin, agent
Sincerely,
James; B Stanfill
Asset anagement Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of k9tigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.5976