20190438 Ver 1_401 Application_20190404

'S �) �,�N �
Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New ActionsY\1
1
�-
SAW — 201 - BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: NOrthlake West
2. Work Type: Private ❑ Institutional ❑
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and 63e]:
JD for a Commercial Development
Assign Action ID Number in ORM F1
Government ❑ Commercial 7
201 90438
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Applicant: Gustafson Partners, LLC. POC: Trent Gustafson
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS; POC: Mr. Daniel Roberts, PWS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]: 2018-02279
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
Southwest of the Reames Road, and West W.T. Harris Road intersection, in Charlotte, NC
35.345692°, -80.858561 0
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]: 02522104, and 02522105
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Long Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 62c]: Catawba River 03050101
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 39
❑ Regional General Permit #
❑✓ Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 & 404 ❑
❑Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

o�oF w a re9Qc
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
M Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
Yes a No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
Yes No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
Yes
No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
Yes
No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Northlake West
2b. County:
Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
See Table 1, Attachment C for Owner Information
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
Agent Other, specify: Commercial Real-estate Company
4b. Name:
Trent Gustafson
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Gustafson Partners
4d. Street address:
P.O. Box 12170
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28220
4f. Telephone no.:
704.953.3104
4g. Fax no.:
N/A
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Daniel Roberts, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5c. Street address:
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no.:
704-527-1177 ext 707
5f. Fax no.:
704-527-1133
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
02522104 and 02522105
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.345676 ° Longitude: -80.8584170
1c. Property size:
Project Limits: 10.4 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Long Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Catawba River (HUC 03050101)
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 proposed Northlake West site will be located southwest of the Reames Road, and W W.T. Harris Road intersection,
in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2, Attachment A). The current land use for the project consists of undeveloped
forest (Figure 3, Attachment A).
According to the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web
Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County (Figure 4, Attachment A) and the NRCS 1976 Soil Survey for Mecklenburg County
(Figure 5, Attachment A), current and historic on-site soils consist of Cecil sandy clay loam (CeB2) and Monacan loam
(MO). Of the on-site soils, only Monacan loam (MO) is listed as containing hydric inclusions for Mecklenburg county.
A review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) depicts no potential features occurring on site (Figure 6, Attachment
A). Long Creek is mapped on the USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2, Attachment A) and Figure 5. Long Creek occurs
just outside the project limits along the southern boundary.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 110 If
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to develop the site for commercial use.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Gustafson Partners proposes to construct commercial and retail buildings, along with associated infrastructure, such as
roads and utilities within Mecklenburg County tax parcels 02522104 and 02522105. This project will provide needed
commercial and retail space within the rapidly developing Wedgewood neighborhood in northern Charlotte.
Site preparation will involve engineered fill within Stream A (S1) and Wetland AA (W1) (Figure 7; Attachment D). Permanent
impacts to Wetland AA will total 0.02 ac., and permanent impacts to Stream A will total 110 linear feet. Plans for the proposed
grading and development of the Northlake West site are shown in Attachment D. Impacts to Wetland AA (W1) will result
from fill associated with the construction of a road providing site ingress/egress. Impacts to Stream A (S1) will result from
piping due to grading to support a sidewalk along the east side of Northlake Plaza Drive. See the Avoidance and Minimization
Section D.1.a. for more details.
Typical heavy equipment will be used in the grading operations (bulldozers, excavators, dump trucks, graders, etc). Proper
sediment and erosion control structures and techniques will be used to protect on-site and off-site waters. Retaining walls
will be used to protect avoided on-site waters as practicable.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by
� Yes 1:1 No 0 Unknown
the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this
property / project(including all priorphases) in thepast?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what
Preliminary Final
)
type of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Consultant Company: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
Name (if known):
(CWS)
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A field determination was made by the Corps on February 8, 2019. This project has been designated as SAW -2018-02279.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained3
Yes 0 No Unknown
for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
-
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
Yes No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams —tributaries P Buffers P Open Waters F1 Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f. Area
Wetland impact number
Type of
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
of
Permanent (P) or
impact
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Temporary (T)
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
W1
p;
Fill
1
Forested
Yes
Corps
0.02
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.02 ac.
2h. Comments:
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands total 0.02 ac.
This unavoidable permanent impact is associated with fill for the placement of a road through the site to allow access to the
proposed buildings (See Attachment D).
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 number
Type of
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
Permanent (P) or
impact
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Temporary (T)
width
(linear
(feet)
feet)
S1
P
Pipe
Stream A
Int
Corps
3
110
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
110 If
3i. Comments:
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional streams total 110 If.
Unavoidable permanent impacts are associated with fill and pipe for the placement of a sidewalk as required by the City of
Charlotte (See Attachment D).
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivii ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
-
Choose One
Choose
02
Choose One
Choose
03
_
Choose One
Choose
04
-
Choose One
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose One
P2
Choose One
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number-
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1
_
Yes/No
B2
_
Yes/No
B3
Yes/No
B4
Yes/No
B5
_
Yes/No
B6
-
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
To avoid and minimize the impacts to the jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the Northlake West site was delineated prior to
design, and the site was designed to avoid impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Site plans were altered several
times to reduce impacts to Waters of the US, as detailed below. A 'No build' alternative was considered during the
planning of this project. The purpose of the project is to develop the site for commercial use in a quickly growing area of
Charlotte. A 'no build' alternative would not meet project goals. Therefore, this alternative was removed from
consideration.
Refected Alternative 1
Impacts under Alternative 1 included impacts to Stream A, Wetland AA, and Wetland BB (Attachment D). Upon review of
the design, it was determined that impacts to Wetland BB would include fill from a stormwater management pond located
within the 100 -year FEMA floodplain. The regional conditions for NWP 39 prohibit impacts to Waters of the US within the
FEMA 100 year floodplain and prohibits impacts from stormwater management structures. Additionally, it was determined
that the proposed stormwater management pond could be reconfigured to avoid impacts to Wetland BB. Due to this design
not being allowable under a Nationwide Permit and the availability of alternative designs resulting in less impacts to
jurisdictional waters, this design was rejected from further consideration.
Reiected Alternative 2
Following the February 8, 2019 site visit with district engineer David Shaeffer, it was determined that Wetland BB extended
east for 0.1 acres and parcel 02522112, west of the current project area, contained potential waters of the U.S. Alternative
2 design proposed fill from a stormwater management pond to the additional 0.1 acres of Wetland BB within the FEMA
floodplain and proposed approximately 0.7 acres of fill for parking lots within parcel 02522112 (Attachment D). After
reconfiguring the density and layout of parking and stormwater structures it was determined that alternatives could be
designed to meet the project goals and completely exclude the western adjacent parcel 02522112. Due to alternative
designs resulting in less impacts to jurisdictional waters and this design not being allowable under a Nationwide Permit,
this design was rejected from further consideration.
Preferred Site Plan
The currently proposed site plan was developed as a result of the alternatives analysis and avoidance and minimization
process (Attachment D). The preferred site plan has minimized impacts to Waters of the U.S. by approximately 0.9 acres,
the maximum extent practicable, as impacts to Wetland BB and other areas in the FEMA floodplain were eliminated.
Unavoidable permanent impacts to on-site jurisdictional features are limited to 0.02 acres of Wetland AA (W1) and 110
linear feet of Stream A (S1).
Impacts to Wetland AA are unavoidable as grading and fill for roads or building pads will be required due to its central
location within the project area and slope of the surrounding upland areas. Proposed impacts to Wetland AA are from an
east to west roadway connection required for development of the site based on the minimum setback length provision
within the City of Charlotte Subdivision Ordinance. Grading and fill associated with this road way will result in unavoidable
impact to Wetland AA (0.02 ac, W1). The location of the road was dictated by the placement of several structures key to
achieving project aims. The width of the road has been reduced to zoning ordinance standard of 'Commercial Narrow' but
is still unable to avoid impacts to Wetland AA.
Stream A occurs at the base of a 30 ft ditch located within City of Charlotte right of way along two parcel boundaries and
originates from an offsite stormwater basin outfall. Stream A flows within the project area for 110 If before entering a drop
inlet. Impacts to Stream A are unavoidable due to fill and grading required for the additional sidewalk for Northlake Plaza
Drive. The addition of a sidewalk along the east side of Northlake Plaza Drive is required per the approved site rezoning
plan and is required within the City of Charlotte right-of-way adjacent to Northlake Plaza Drive. Grading within the City of
Charlotte right-of-way must contain a positive slope draining the planting strip and sidewalk towards the roadway.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

Northlake Plaza Drive and the proposed private street must be built to Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) safety
standards. Retaining walls within the existing ditch to protect Stream A would not meet CDOT safety standards and therefore
cannot be used to avoid stream impacts. The sidewalk and necessary grading requires the piping of Stream A (110 If, S1) to allow
or proper grading.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid all other impacts wherever possible. We believe that the current site plan is
he best possible plan that meets the project goals while avoiding impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent
practicable.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Construction
activities and impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit 39 and
Water Quality Certificate No. 4139. Slopes will be graded and retaining walls will be installed in such a way to avoid impacts
to Waters of the U.S. within the FEMA floodplain.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
Type: Choose One
Quantity:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose One
Quantity:
Quantity:
Type: Choose One
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes ❑ No
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose One
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

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.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) —required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
p Yes No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
p 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
0 No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
>24 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
Yes
Q 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 stormwater plan will be administered under the City of Charlotte Phase II Stormwater
Program.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
City of Charlotte
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte
0NSWPhase II
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
Cl
apply (check all that apply):
0 USMP
�3
Water Supply
Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
IP Yes
No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
Coastal counties
HQW
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
Cl ORW
(check all that apply):
j Session Law 2006-246
E] Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
f7 Yes
No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
Yes]
No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
L] Yes
No
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
Yes
® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
01 No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. 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.)
0 Yes
Q 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,
1 Yes
No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
b 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 is a single and complete project that will not result in cumulative impacts.
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.
On-site sewage will be treated off site at a Charlotte Treatment plant.
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
p Yes ®No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
p Yes No
impacts?
-
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
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 November 5, 2018 to determine if any record occurrences of federally -listed, candidate
endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat were located within the project limits. The results of the desktop review
and habitat assessment are included in the Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report (Attachment E).
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.html
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
p 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?
letter was forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on November 13, 2018 to determine
he presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project
(Attachment F). CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service and found no historical structures, buildings, sites, or
districts within the project limits. A response letter from the SHPO dated December 7, 2018 states "We have conducted a
review of the project area and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have
no comment on project as proposed." A copy of the SHPO response letter is attached (Attachment F).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes L7 No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
FEMA floodplain elevations will not be changed by project actions. Floodplain development permits will be acquired prior to
any land disturbing activities.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
North Carolina Flood Risk Information System. htti)s://fris.nc.gov/fris/Home.aspx?ST=NC
l>:.r
March 18, 2019
Mr. Daniel Roberts
Agent's Signature
Agent's Printed Name
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
Date
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

Northlake West Site
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A:
Figures 1-7
March 25, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0389

Hornets Nest
FWegional Bark
1Y
y
0
�J
N
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hams and Reames Road\Permit (NWP# or IP)\ArcGIS\Figuret_Vicinity.mxd
S
6t
�ry
O
unset Hills
y�0
Golf Ceruse
tics
�,
Legend
►,,
c.
E Project Limits (10.4 ac.)
e4L+
RaReg
n sodm
-
cr
5,000 2,500 0 5,000 Feet
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND VICINITY MAP PROVIDED BY ESRI, 2019.
SCALE:
1 inch =
5,000 feet
DATE:
2/18/2019
c -
CAROLINA
Vicinity Map
FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO.
2018-0356
DRAWN BY:
JKM
_
Northlake West
Mecklenburg County
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
35.345676,
-80.858417
CAG
WETLAND SERVICES
Charlotte, NC
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hams and Reames Road\Permit (NWP# or IP)\ArcGIS\Figuret_Vicinity.mxd

r
a _
+ 4
v,
l ti
z
tiQ N
l a0
TiORTHLg�11
¢q
BLVD
1
\✓
Uf
i
R t •� R 9 J_
I �µN t 7 t
1r .}
vria
reek
\, f-4
Legend
Project Limits (10.4 ac.)
1100
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): DERITA, NC (2017).
❑ - z�' V.
TF
SCALE:DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 2,000 feet 2/18/2019 USGS Topographic Map
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2018-0356 JKM Northlake West
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County 2
35.345676, -80.858417 1 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, NC
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team DHve\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\201 M389 WT Hams and Reames Road\Permit (NWP# or IP)\ArcGIS\Fgure2_USGS.mxd

GATeam Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consufting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hams and Reames Road\Permit (NWP# or IP)\ArcGIS\Figure3_Aedal.mxd

GATeam Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hams and Reames Road\Permit (NWP# or IP)\ArcGIS\Figure4_CumentSoil.mxd

He
CeB 1 A
EnB
ol"O
UK
WW T Harris Blvd
e 'V a B
1-77
PaE
EnS
Reames Rd
7
L
UP
a
EnB CeB2
C�4 aE
M e B
VaB EnQ
Ena
Legend
Soil Unit Name and Description H dric
Ce132 Cecil sandy clay loam 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded No
CeD2 Cecil sand clay loam 8 to 15per-cent slopes, moderately eroded No Project Limits (10.4 ac.)
MO Monacan loam 0to 2 ercent slop es fre uentl flooded Yes
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS HISTORIC SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC, SHEET 4, DATED 1976.
SCALE:1 inch = 1,000 feet 2/18/2019 Y DATE: USDA-NRCS Historic Soil Survey FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: of Mecklenburg County
2018-0356 JKM Northlake West
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.345676, -80.858417 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, NC
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hams and Reames Road\Permit (NWP# or IP)WrcGIS\Figure5_HistoricSoil.mxd

Q�
Jac 0
0
m
d co
3 m
0
West
Secretariat p
a U \
a �
CJS 0
G\e� pv N ev f\e\d s Uo' 01 \Na��
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.
SCALE: DATE:
1 inch = 1,000 feet 2/18/2019
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2018-0356 JKM
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA ARQ1 INA
35.345676, -80.858417 CAG WETLAND SERVICES
Miall Dr �
Noathlake �
-4
S
m
(!1
03
b
meter Station Dr
Legend
Project Limits (10.4 ac.)
Roads
National Wetland Inventory
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
LI
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
National Wetland Inventory FIGURE NO.
Northlake West
Mecklenburg County 6
Charlotte, NC
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hams and Reames Road\Permit (NWP#or IP)WrcGIS\Figure6_NWl.mzd

Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Stream A - 110 If
SCP1
Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Wetland AA- 0.02 acre
Legend
Wetlands Waters of the U.S.
Q Project Limits (10.4 ac.)
Wetland BB - 0.69 acre
- - - Intermittent Stream
�5 `
Perennial Stream
Wetland
Roads
Long Creek
0
uTax Parcels
FEMA 100 Year Floodplain
Indicates Flow °�
1130
N Photo Location and Direction
\
.SCP Stream Classification Point
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG
COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2018.
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED
IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND MAPPED USING A SUB -FOOT CAPABLE GPS 200 100 0 200 Feet
UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON JUNE 12, 2018. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WERE FIELD
VERIFIED BY THE USACE'S DAVID SHAEFFER ON FEBRUARY 8, 2019.
X50
JI
SCALE: DATE:
1 inch = 200 feet 3/6/2019 Jurisdictional Boundaries FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY:
2018-0356 JDR Northlake West
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY. CAROLINA Mecklenburg County 7
35.345676, -80.858417 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, NC
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Harris and Reames Road\Permit(NWP)VvcGIS\Figure7_JD_2.8.19.mxd

Northlake West Site
Attachments
ATTACHMENT B:
Agent Authorization
March 25, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0389

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representative(s) of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
, oY - ".t/�jAnl, representing, Az) Y Z -4,-; 1,a AJ ,
hereby certify that I have authorized Daniel Roberts of Caroliria 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.
Applicant's signature
it -t(p _.A013
Agent's signature
Date Date
11/15/2018
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign
all future application correspondence.

Northlake West Site
Attachments
ATTACHMENT C:
Owner Table
March 25, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0389

Table 1. Owners Table
Parcel Number
Owner
Deed Book
Email/Phone
Mailing
and Page No.
Number
Address
02522104
ROY I DENMAN
04574-938
N/A
4300 W
WACO DR
STE B2 #205
WACO TX
76710
02522105
NORTHLAKE WEST REAL
33182-627
tgustafson@gp
PO BOX
ESTATE INVESTORS LLC;
artnerscre.com
12170
POC: Trent Gustafson
/704.953.3104
CHARLOTTE
NC 28220

Northlake West Site
Attachments
ATTACHMENT D:
March 25, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0389
Impact Figures and Preferred Site Plans

L � 0�.
0
Preferred AlternativeA
/# 4414y"i
'
Hu 9
W1-0.02 ac. Permanent tm..
------ -----
. . . . . . . . . . ------
/o
ee
Pim..... NOTAPPROVEDFOR
CONSTRUCTION
M/4
V
-XsSM CONSTRtIMON
DOCUMEMS
NORTHLAKE WEST
MMEDUSE
NORTH -LAKE
gr I
PLAZA DRIVE'
Flooeplal. a .Wl W M storm Water -R79
( A tj
GRADING PLAN
C-401

Northlake West Site
Attachments
March 25, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0389
ATTACHMENT E:
Rejected Alternative Site Plans

- ------'-----'11 it
----
wetiand t3b U. 1 ac of impacts from
expanded wetland area established at
Corps site visit on February 8, 2019.
\
GRADING PLAN
NOT APPROVED FOR
acres of additional impervious
CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMETM
i0.67
development vAth potent!
the U.S,
\
GRADING PLAN

Northlake West Site
Attachments
March 25, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0389
ATTACHMENT F:
Protected Species Habitat Report

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
November 13, 2018
Mr. Trent Gustafson
Gustafson Partners
4600 Park Road, Suite 370
Charlotte, NC 28209
Subject: Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
WT Harris and Reames Road (11.6 ac.)
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2018-0389
Dear Mr. Gustafson,
Gustafson Partners has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide a
protected species habitat assessment for the WT Harris and Reames Road site. The project
area includes Mecklenburg County Tax Parcel Nos. 02522112, 02522104, and 02522105,
totalling approximately 11.6 acres in extent. The project area is located southwest of the
Reames Road and W.T. Harris Road intersection, in Charlotte, 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 Explorer2 on November 5, 2018 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 were discerned from multiple USFWS3 and
NCNHP' online resources including, but not limited to, specific USFWS species profiles,
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
' United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office. Accessed November 7, 2018. Endangered and Threatened
Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/mecklenburg.html
a 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 November 7, 2018.
° 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

WT Harris and Reames Road
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
November 13, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0389
Mecklenburg County' and aerial imagery were also reviewed for potential habitat communities
of listed species within the project vicinity (Figures 2 and 3).
Field Survee
CWS scientists Megan Shelton, Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT), and Julia McGuire,
Staff Scientist I, conducted a pedestrian habitat assessment of the project area on November 7,
2018. 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 assessment, 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
Presley Site, Mecklenburg County, NC.
Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status*
Record Status
Plant
Helianthus
Schweinitz's
E
Current
schweinitzii
sunflower
Plant
Echinacea
Smooth Coneflower
E
Current
laevigata
Plant
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Historic
Animal
Bombus affinis
Rusty -patched
E
Historic
bumblebee
Animal
Lasmigona
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Current
decorata
Myotis
Northern long-eared
Animal
septentrionalis
bat
T
Current
Animal
Haliaeetus
Bald eagle
BGPA
Current
leucocephalus
E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Two terrestrial community types were identified within the project area during the field survey.
These community types consist of maintained roadside areas and forested areas (Figure 3). Of
the identified on-site community types, none are considered potential habitat for federally
threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur within the project limits. A brief
5 United States Department of Agriculture, 2017. Web Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. October 8, 2018.
Source: https://websoilsurvey.nrGs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
e 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

WT Harris and Reames Road
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
November 13, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0389
description of each species habitat requirements and determination of effect findings are listed
below 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 records of Schweinitz's
sunflower within a one -mile radius of the project area (Attachment A). The field survey
assessment and desktop review examined the site for suitable habitat and appropriate
soils. Due to a dense canopy of musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple (Acer
rubum), and box elder (Acer negundo), on-site forested areas lack sufficient sunlight to
support Schweinitz's sunflower (Photograph 1). The maintained roadside area receives
frequent maintenance through regular mowing and, consequently, it is not suitable
habitat (Photograph 2). The border of the roadside area and the forest is not suitable
due to its thick understory of woody vegetation, which would outcompete Schweinitz's
sunflower (Photograph 2). On-site soils consist of the Monacan and Cecil soil series.
The Monacan soil series has a low shrink -swell capacity and low clay content.
Schweinitz's sunflower is known to grow in Cecil soil series but this soil is only present in
forested areas of the site. During the field assessment on November 7, 2018, no
individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower or other Helianthus species were observed in any
area. Due to the lack of supportive habitat, appropriate soils, and observed individuals
CWS concludes that this project will have no effect on the Schweinitz's sunflower.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
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,
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,
6 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/federal_register/fr2l4O.pdf.
Page 3 of 8

WT Harris and Reames Road
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
November 13, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0389
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:
According to the NCNHP data record, there are no records of smooth coneflower within
a one -mile radius of the project area (Attachment A). Both the field survey assessment
and desktop review examined the site for suitable habitat and appropriate soils. On-site
soils consist of the Monacan and Cecil soil series. While the Cecil soils series does have
diabase parent material, it is only present in forested areas of the site. On-site forested
areas have a closed canopy and do not receive sufficient sunlight to support smooth
coneflower (Photograph 1). The maintained roadside area is unsuitable due to frequent
maintenance next to the road and a competitive understory bordering the wood
(Photograph 2). During the field assessment on November 7, 2018, no individuals of
smooth coneflower were observed in any area. Due to the lack of supportive habitat,
appropriate soils, and observed individuals CWS concludes that this project will have
no effect on 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 of this
species within the project limits, or within a one -mile radius of the project (Attachment A).
Both the field survey assessment and desktop review analyzed the project area for
suitable habitat. The on-site forested areas are unsuitable due to the inability of sunlight
to infiltrate the canopy (Photograph 1). The maintained roadside area is unsuitable
because of frequent maintenance and a competitive understory (Photograph 2).
Additionally the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office states in its Michaux's sumac
profile page that the species is considered historic in Mecklenburg County11. Due to the
lack of habitat and historic listing status; CWS concludes that this project will not
affect Michaux's sumac.
10 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/federal_register/frl601.pdf.
11 Suiter, Dale. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Raleigh Ecological Services Field, USFWS. Michaux's Sumac Species Profile page. Last
updated August 24, 2017. Accessed November 7, 2018 https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_michauxs_sumac.htmi
Page 4 of 8

WT Harris and Reames Road November 13, 2018
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0389
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.12
Biological Analysis:
A NCNHP data record review revealed that there are no current occurrences of this
species within the project limits, or within a one -mile radius of the project (Attachment A).
In order to assess the presence or absence of the Carolina heelsplitter on-site, the field
survey assessment and desktop review examined the site for suitable habitat. A desktop
review revealed one perennial stream, Long Creek, and this was confirmed by a
pedestrian survey on November 7, 2018 (Figure 2). The Long Creek watershed is urban
in nature causing excessive sedimentation, turbidity, and stream bank destabilization
that is not conducive to Carolina heelsplitter habitat. On-site conditions of Long Creek
consist of highly unstable banks with a silty bed, high sedimentation, high turbidity, and
contains large amounts of woody debris and trash (Photograph 3). These stream
conditions are not considered habitat for Carolina heelsplitter. Additionally, the closest
populations of Carolina heelsplitter are downstream in Waxhaw Creek, over 45 miles
away. Based on the lack of potential habitat, distance from known populations, and the
NHP database indicating there is no known population of the species within one mile of
the project area or in downstreams waters, CWS concludes that this project will have
no effect on the Carolina heelsplitter.
Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis)
The Rusty patched bumble bee was listed as Endangered under the ESA in January 2017.13
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
NCDOT TE Animal Habitat Descriptions. 2015.
https://con nect. ncdot.gov/resources/Environ menta I/Compliance%2OGu ides%20and %2OProced u res/TE%2OAni ma I%20 Habitat%
20Descri ptions%20 Ma r_6_2015. pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Services. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/index.html
Page 5 of 8

WT Harris and Reames Road November 13, 2018
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0389
bumble bee is not likely to be present and that consultations or incidental take coverage is not
necessary."14 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
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. 15 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, 2017.16 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 WT
Harris and Reames Road as the action area is within range of the NLEB, 17 the action area is
located outside of a red 12 -digit HUC as defined by the Asheville Ecological Services Field
Office, 18 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,19 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 near estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, rivers,
seacoast, and as they become more abundant, stands of undisturbed forest. This site is not
near any large bodies of water and is surrounded by commercial development. Since there was
no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study area and the area within
the project limits was not conducted. A review of the NCNHP database on November 7, 2018
revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to
lack of habitat and known occurrences, CWS concludes that this project will have no effect
on the bald eagle.
14 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/index.html
15 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
18 USACE http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf
17 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. https://www.fws.gov/midwesVendangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
18 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. Northern Long -Eared Bat.
19 https://www.fws.gov/midwesVMidwestBird/eaglepermits/bagepa.htmi
Page 6 of 8

WT Harris and Reames Road
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
Determinations
November 13, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0389
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 Schweinitz's sunflower, smooth coneflower, Michaux's
sumac, Carolina heelsplitter, rusty -patched bumblebee, or the bald eagle. 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 on
NLEB that may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule and notifications
will follow the SLOPES agreement20. Biological determinations requirements for federally
protected species are summarized in Table 2 (below).
Table 2. Biological Determination Requirements Summary Table for Federally Protected Species
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGEPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
** - Required in accordance with SLOPES, ALP 1 agreement.
20 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
Echinacea laevigata
Smooth coneflower
E
Will Not Affect
No
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Will Not Affect
No
Lasmigona decorata
Carolina heelsplitter
T
Will Not Affect
No
Bombus affinis
Rusty -patched bumblebee
E
Will Not Affect
No
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern -long-eared bat
E
Exempt/Excepted
Yes**
Haliaeetus
Bald eagle
E
Will Not Affect
No
leucocephalus
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGEPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
** - Required in accordance with SLOPES, ALP 1 agreement.
20 http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB_in_WNC.html
Page 7 of 8

WT Harris and Reames Road
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
November 13, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0389
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 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 Daniel Roberts at 704-527-1177 ext. 707 or [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Daniel Roberts, PWS
Project Scientist
Christine A. Geist, PWS, CE
Consulting Group Manager
Attachments: Figure 1: USGS Site Location
Figure 2: Current USDA-NRCS Soil Map of Mecklenburg County
Figure 3: Aerial Imagery
Attachment A: NCNHP Data Review Report
Attachment B: Representative Photographs (1-3)
Page 8 of 8

QR LIR
- — S h1 `'ra• �`� R.s BLVD
-s N✓T A R
DP1,
IY .
kOnQ �feK �- a
i
4fk
i
r.
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hands and Reames Road\PETS\ArcGIS\Figurel_USGS.mxd
Legend
y` y
Project Limits (11.6 ac.)
�>
°a
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): DERITA, NC (2017).
SCALE:
1 inch = 2,000 feet
DATE:
11/5/2018
USGS Topographic Map
FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
2018-0389
JKM
W.T. Harris and Reames Rd Site
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:1
+
CAROLINA
A
R O L I N A
Mecklenburg County
35.345692, -80.858561
CAG
j
WETLAND SERVICES
Charlotte, NC
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hands and Reames Road\PETS\ArcGIS\Figurel_USGS.mxd

GATeam Dnves\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hams and Reames Road\PETSWrcGIS\Figure2_CurrentSoil.mxd

SCALE:
1 inch = 300 feet
DATE
11/7/2018
Aerial Map
FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
2018-0389
JKM
C W.T. Harris and Reames Rd Site
CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, NC
3
COORDINATES:
35.345692, -80.858561
CHECKED BY:
CAG
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0389 WT Hams and Reames Road\PETSWrcGIS\Figure3_Aerial.mxd

■us Roy Cooper, Governor
■3M NG DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
SMNATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
0''aa Walter Clark, Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-7454
November 5, 2018
Julia McGuire
Carolina Wetland Services
550 e Westinghouse Blcd
Charlotte, NC 29707
RE: WT Harris and Reames Road; 2018-0389
Dear Julia McGuire:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s•//www fws gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices cfm?statecode=37
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water
Management Trust Fund easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented
near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler(d)ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 W JONDS STREET. QALEiG4E , P1(_'2'76aW • W -v1 MAGI fiERViCE CLP1TEP, €2ALE1GH. n3C 276?7
Q OFC 919`10':120 - FAX 919707X12)

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
WT Harris and Reames Road
Project No. 2018-0389
November 5, 2018
NCN H D E-7454
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserye.org/content/help. Data query generated on November 5, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q4 Oct 2018.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Aff, Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/help. Data query generated on November 5, 2018; source: NCNHP, 04 Oct 2018.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4
WT Harris and Reames Road
Project No. 2018-0389
November 5, 2018
NCNHDE-7454
Element Occurrences Documented
Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
TaxonomicEO ID
Scientific Name Common Name Last Element
Accuracy Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date Rank
Vascular Plant 13743
Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi?
5 -Very ---
Endangered
G3
S2
Low
Vascular Plant 33285
Sceptridium jenmanii Alabama Grape -fern 1936-09 H
5 -Very ---
Special
G3G4
S2
Low
Concern
Vulnerable
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Aff, Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/help. Data query generated on November 5, 2018; source: NCNHP, 04 Oct 2018.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

N
W+E
NCNHDE-7454: WT Harris and Reames Road
November 5, 2018
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 4 of 4
1:22,127
0 0.175 0.35 0.7 mi
0 0-3 0.6 1.2 km
Sources: Est, HERE, Ga— Int—ap increment P Corp GESCO, USGS,
FAO NPS NRCA.N Ge Base IGN, Kadaskef NL Orcinance Survey Esti Japan
NIETIEsn Chn. (Hong Kongl. s-sVom 0�
OnStreMklap contnbutors and
the GIS Use, Community

N
44,

Northlake West Site
Attachments
ATTACHMENT G:
NCSHPO Correspondence
March 25, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0389

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Banos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
December 7, 2018
Kevin Ferguson
ECS Southeast, LLP
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Meadow Oak Industrial Development, WT Harris Boulevard & Reames Road, Charlotte,
ECS 49:8051-A, Mecklenburg County, ER 18-3438
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
Thank you for your letter of October 31, 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.reviewnncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
C,,-/ � ): dklduLtac�
)✓Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Northlake West Site
Attachments
ATTACHMENT H:
Data Forms
March 25, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0389

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: WT Harris and Reames Site City/County: Mecklenberg Sampling Date: 6-12-18
Applicant/Owner: Gustafson Partners State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): JDR/JKM Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.345521 Long: -80.858237 Datum: NAD86
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Mo) NWI classification: N/A
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? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Represents Wetland AA
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) —True
Aquatic Plants (614)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2) _Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (13 16)
—Water Marks (B1) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (B3) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ShallowAquitard (133)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (813)
X FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 3
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 2
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: 15 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Liquidambarstyraciflua
10
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2,
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 88.9% (A/B)
7,
Prevalence Index worksheet:
10
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
5
20% of total cover.
2
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species x2=
1.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5
Yes
FACW
FAC species x3=
2,
FACU species x4=
3,
UPL species X5=
4,
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5,
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 s3.0'
5
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
3
20% of total cover.
1
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
—Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Dichanthelium clandestinum
10
Yes
FAC
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Microstegium vimineum
7
Yes
FAC
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Acer negundo 5 Yes FAC
4.
Fraxinus pennsylvanics
5
Yes
FACW
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Smilax rotundifolia
5
Yes
FAC
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
5
Yes
FACU
height.
7.
Fragaria vesca
3
No
FACU
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.
40
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
20
20% of total cover.
8
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
Smilax rotundiiolla
60
Yes
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
60
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
30
20% of total cover:
12
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Plot size adjusted to match shape and size of wetland being evaluated.
88.9% of dominant vegetiation 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
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Locz Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/2 100 Loamy/Clayey
3-20 2.5YR 6/1 95 10YR 6/6 5 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
`Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ 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)
—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)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
31ndicators 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 soil 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: WT Hams and Reames Site City/County: Mecklenberg Sampling Date: 6-12-18
Applicant/Owner: Gustafson Partners State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): JDR/JKM Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.345354 Long: -80.858411 Datum: NAD86
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan Loa, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Mo) NWI classification: N/A
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:
Upland area denoting end of Wetland AA.
HYDROLOGY
Wetiand Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that awls)
—Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (Al) —True
Aquatic Plants (B14)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (B10)
—Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (B1) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (62) _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)
Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_Inundation
—Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ 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 not 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 ) % Cover
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sampling Point: DP2
Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1. Asimina triloba 10 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover. 2
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Microstegium vimineum 80
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Yes FAC
80 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 40 20% of total cover. 16
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Toxicodendron radicans 20 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
20 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4
Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Plot size adjusted to match shape and size of wetland being evaluated.
100.0% of dominant vegetiation is FAC or wetter.
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or 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
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4
10YR 3/2
100
Loamy/Clayey
4-9
10YR 5/3
100
Loamy/Clayey
9-16
2.5YR 5/3
100
Loamy/Clayey
16-20
2.5YR 6/3
100
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 (A1)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (All 0) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_Black Histic (A3)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719)
_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 (H 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 soil are not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont –Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: WT Harris and Reames Site City/County: Mecklenberg Sampling Date: 6-12-18
Applicant/Owner: Gustafson Partners State: NC Sampling Point: DP3
Investigator(s): JDR/JKM Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.345213 Long: -80.858903 Datum: NAD86
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Mo) NWI classification: N/A
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? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Represents Wetland BB
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
—True Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (810)
_Saturation (A3)
X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Thin Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (131)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (132)
_Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
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 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.
Acer rubrum
60
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Acer negundo
15
No
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
3.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
No
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Celtis occidentalis
10
No
FACU
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
5.
Platanus occidentalis
10
No
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
105
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
53 20% of total cover.
21
OBL species x 1 =
SaDlina/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species x2=
1.
Asimina triloba
15
Yes
FAC
FAC species x3=
2.
Acer negundo
5
Yes
FAC
FACU species x4=
3.
Prunus serotina
5
Yes
FACU
UPL species x5=
4,
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
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'
25
=Total Cover
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover.
13 20% of total cover.
5
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Impatiens capensis
70
Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
No
FACW
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Deflnitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 3 No FACU
4.
Asimina triloba
7
No
FAC
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Ligustrum sinense
5
No
FACU
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6.
Toxicodendron radicans
3
No
FAC
height.
7.
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.
98
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
49 20°x6 of total cover.
20
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.)
Plot size adjusted to match shape and size of wetland being evaluated.
80 of dominant vegetiation 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
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 5/2 98
10YR 5/4 2 C PL
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
2-8 10YR 6/2 85
7.5YR 4/4 15 C PL
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
8-20 10YR 6/2 60
7.5YR 5/4 40 C PL
Loamy/Clayey Distinct 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 (A1)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
147, 148) _ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
—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)
_ Depleted Belo Dark Surface (Al 1)
—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
Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Sandy
—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 soil 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: WT Hams and Reames Site City/County: Mecklenberg Sampling Date: 6-12-18
Applicant/Owner: Gustafson Partners State: NC Sampling Point: DP4
Investigator(s): JDR/JKM Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.345213 Long: -80.858903 Datum: NAD86
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Mo) NWI classification: N/A
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 NoIs the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Represents Upland Area near Wetland BB.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Surface Water (Al) —True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_
—High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (B1) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (82) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (64) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (133)
-Stained Leaves (B9)
—Microtopographic Relief (134)
—Water
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 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: DP4
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
1.
Acer rubrum
90
Yes
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
80
Yes
3.
Liquidambar styraciflua
80
Yes
4.
Ulmus alata
10
No
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Asimina triloba
20 Yes FAC
6.
3. Toxicodendron radicans
10 No FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
7.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
260
=Total Cover
height.
50% of total cover:
130 20% of total cover.
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
1.
Asimina 8floba
70
Yes
2.
Fagus grandifolia
10
No
3.
Elaeagnus umbellate
10
No
4.
5.
6.
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
6
7
85.7%
(A)
(B)
(AIB)
FAC
FACU
FAC
FACU
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
90 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
52
FAC
FACU
UPL
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7,
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8,
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
90 =Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover.
45 20% of total cover. 18
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Impatiens capensis
60 Yes FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Asimina triloba
20 Yes FAC
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
3. Toxicodendron radicans
10 No FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
90 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 45 20% of total cover. 18
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Toxicodendron radicans 20 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
20 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
85.7% of the dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
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
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 4/3 100
Loamy/Clayey
2-18 10YR 6/3 85
10YR 4/6 15 C M Loamy/Clayey Distinct 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 SoII93:
_ 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
Redox (S5)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_Sandy
_ 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 soil are not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: WT Harris and Reames Site City/County: Mecklenberg Sampling Date: 6-12-18
Applicant/Owner: Gustafson Partners State: NC Sampling Point: DP5
Investigator(s): JDR/JKM Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Let: 35.345496 Long: -80.17859634 Datum: NAD86
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Mo) NWI classification: N/A
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? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Represents Wetland CC
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al)
—True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
X Saturation (A3)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_Iron
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (133)
_
-Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
—Water
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC -Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches): 17
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: DP5
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1 •
Number of Dominant Species
2,
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4,
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
5•
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover.
OBL species x 1 =
SaDlina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species x2=
1.
Impatiens capensls
15 Yes
FACW
FAC species x3=
2.
Asimina triloba
10 Yes
FAC
FACU species x4=
3.
Ligustrum sinense
5 No
FACU
UPL species X5=
4.
Ulmus alata
5 No
FACU
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Wisteria frutescens
5 No
FACW
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7,
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
g.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
40 =Total Cover
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20 20% of total cover.
8
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
—Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
L/quidambar styraciflua
10 Yes
FAC
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2,
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
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.
10 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover.
5 20% of total cover.
2
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.)
Plot size adjusted to match shape and size of wetland being evaluated.
100.0% of dominant vegetiation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type
Loc
Texture Remarks
0-2
2.5YR 4/1
95
10YR 6/6 5 C
M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
2-4
N 2.5/
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
Loamy/Clayey
4-10
10YR 5/3
80
2.5YR 4/1 20 D
PL
Loamy/Clayey
10-16
2.5YR 5/1
100
_Sandy
Redox (S5)
Loamy/Clayey
16-20
2.5YR 5/1
60
10YR 5/3 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 S01183:
_ Histosol (A1)
_ 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 (All 6)
—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 (All 0) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
—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
Redox (S5)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_Sandy
—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 soil are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: June 12, 2018
Project/Site: WT Harris and Reames Road
Latitude: 35.346362
Evaluator: JDR
County: Mecklenberg
Longitude: .80.859238
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ifz 19 or perennial if a 30`
23.5
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Intermittent
Other
Stream Name: Stream A
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
9
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
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 =
7
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 =
7_5
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:
Scirpus atrovirens (green bulrush) on site.
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: June 12, 2018
Project/Site: WT Harris and Reames Road
Latitude: 35.345651
Evaluator: JDR
County: Mecklenberg
Longitude: -80.859942
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ifz 19 or perennial if z 30'
15
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Ephemeral
Other
Stream Name: SCP2
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = §
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
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 1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
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 = 3
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; OSL = 1.5 Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods.
Notes:
Sketch:

Northlake West Site
Attachments
ATTACHMENT I:
Photopage (Photographs 1-9)
March 25, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0389

fi.. r
� �"i' p Mq � }•" i ' in rl
,� ♦ r > 'a' �, tet � i�4,�'� S� `.
ti
`V`�,'��M'
016
Tl• s.

7
EML
iW
i i t Esc s i
'A �l= -r w •`� s4 � • "�,j .a Y Y � , _ 'i`• _�
` 'ri`i � - , �'�yQ���t�r�```�y � ,1f1 _ S� ♦'� -R-,� -1-c A 7r .X-1
�#�.+�
Photograph 5. View of Wetland AA, facing south (DPl).
may,
r g
JO
". 01,
PP W,

* . y,
TI
it r .l f�. ty � • t �W
.,
_ ��:< �- X� �=..:._,• '� - may_ s-:
.__�-r.'rr,' -��'l.. •�'y '1r�� - � � �': ��� ice- �'- n irg12, tw s i
^-'Y - �. :tea.: Z! �'� _ a#�}�• � Fif � '`'i.r _
T .y - ,� + � De i�i� `1a" � •i-�`�J, �'.: �i.. � cam`.
+
iL
1 �� - � - y� Y _ --Z J� �t y � �'- L-�•'��''�.. it �y � ��

Northlake West
Attachment H: Photopage
June 17, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0184
Photograph 9. Long Creek at Reames Road, facing downstream.
Photopage 5 of 5