20190459 Ver 1_Response to Comments_revised_20190520

Strickland, Bev
From: Dan Zurlo <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 3:41 PM
To: Johnson, Alan
Cc: Christine Geist; Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Re: Patterson Road Project'
Attachments: SAW-2018-02209_PattersonRd_ResponsetoComments_revised052019ptp.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hi Alan,
Please see the attached response to David's comments on the permit. Let me know if you have any questions.
-Dan Zurlo
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:39 PM Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]> wrote:
Please update me on the status.
Given the site visit, there was a question about realigning the buildings. Approximately 100K sq ft lost., but impacts are
reduced, below threshold and a NW permit can be received.

DWR
Mvision of Water Resources
Alan O]ohnson — Senior Environmental Specialist
NC Dept. ofEnvironment 0,Natural Resources (NCOENR)
Division of Water Resources ' Water Quality Regional Operations
01OEast Center Ave.,Suite 3O1,Mooresville, NC 28115
4
W2 (Wetland BB
`Z
0.02 am
0.001 acres
S2 �Stream B)
13 linear Ife-et
_jT
FIE
DWR
Mvision of Water Resources
Alan O]ohnson — Senior Environmental Specialist
NC Dept. ofEnvironment 0,Natural Resources (NCOENR)
Division of Water Resources ' Water Quality Regional Operations
01OEast Center Ave.,Suite 3O1,Mooresville, NC 28115
4

Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
Daniel Zurlo
Staff Scientist II
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Cell: 717-460-3466
Office: 704-527-1177
www.cws-inc.net

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
May 16, 2019 Revised: May 20, 2019
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Charlotte Satellite Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Response to Request for Additional Information
Patterson Road (SAW -2018-02209)
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2018-0215
Dear Mr. Shaeffer,
Thank you for your email, received April 25, 2019, requesting additional information regarding
the Patterson Road Nationwide Permit No. 39 application. This letter is in response to your
comments on the project. The permit application had been marked the incomplete due to
avoidance and minimization. Comments are addressed in the same order in which they were
asked.
A. In accordance with 2017 Nationwide Permit General Condition 23(a), the activity must
be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and
permanent, to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the
project site (i.e., on site). The term practicable means available and capable of being
done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes (see 40 CFR 230.3(1)). The Corps understands that the
Huntersville area and general Charlotte metro market enjoys a substantial demand for
speculative warehouse space. However, we are concerned that the applicant has not
avoided and minimized impacts to waters of the United States to the maximum extent
practicable as required by regulation. We have compared this proposal with eight similar
speculative warehouse/distribution facilities that have received Section 404 discharge
permits in the general Charlotte area over the past year. The summary of these findings
are detailed on the attached spreadsheet. We looked at the square footage proposed per
acre because property size is often a primary siting criteria used for such developments.
The applicant is proposing building square footages per acre that are 23% higher than
the highest reviewed and 42% higher than the average per acre across all sites reviewed.
This would seem to suggest that reducing the size of or completely eliminating building
200 would be practicable since it has been achieved by many other developers in the
market. We believe this may eliminate the need for a waiver altogether. Please explain in
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET

Patterson Rd May 16, 2019 Revised: May 20, 2019
Response to Request for Additional Information CWS Project No. 2018-0215; SAW -2018-02209
detail why it is not practicable for the applicant to reduce the size of or eliminate building
200.
RESPONSE:
The applicant has made substantial effort to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the US to
the maximum extent practicable. As noted in the authorization request, the applicant conducted
preliminary analysis of off-site properties for the project that were determined to not be feasible
for the proposed development. The applicant then conducted a wetlands delineation of the
project area during the pre -planning stage for siting of the project infrastructure. The applicant
also carefully evaluated both economics and functional issues in the determination of the
suitability of the site for the proposed development type and prepared their project plan within
the confines of the functional needs for that particular warehouse spacing plan. These factors
were weighed together to ensure the financial feasibility and successful operation of the project.
Significant changes to these model types will make the project impracticable. The applicant was
able to make several plan changes that avoid impacts to the majority of the features on the
project area. However, the location of Streams A and B (S1 and S2), which bisect the eastern
portion of the project, does not allow for the site to be used to its full capability for the planned
development type without some portion of the features being impacted.
Efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to the stream on the eastern portion of the site
In a pre -application meeting with USACE and other agencies on March 14, 2019, the applicant
discussed seeking an Individual Permit (IP) for impacts of 794 If of streams. As a result of the
comments from USACE and EPA, the applicant revised the plan and submitted the NWP
application seeking a total of 616 If of permanent stream impacts with an IP waiver. Through
these revisions, the applicant was able to avoid all impacts to the streams on the west parcels
(S3 and S4).
Following submission of the project for Nationwide Permit 39 authorization, USACE (David
Shaeffer) emailed comments on April 25, 2019 whereby he requested further avoidance and
minimization. The applicant reviewed the model for this type of warehouse use in the context of
site configuration and determined that a shift in the location of car parking at Building 200 and
incorporation of a retaining wall at the east end of the parking lot could be made that would
further reduce the total permanent impacts for the project to streams S1 and S2 to 498 If
(Attached Revised Construction Sheet). Any further reduction to impacts would make the
project impracticable for its planned use.
Reasons why it is not practicable to reduce the size of Building 200
In the April 25, 2019 emailed comments regarding avoidance and minimization, the USACE
asked: Please explain in detail why it is not practicable for the applicant to reduce the size
of or eliminate building 200.
The project has been designed specifically for rear -load buildings with a shared truck court,
which are ideal for a project site of this size and shape.
Page 2 of 5

Patterson Rd May 16, 2019 Revised: May 20, 2019
Response to Request for Additional Information CWS Project No. 2018-0215; SAW -2018-02209
• The rear -load buildings that the applicant proposes to develop on Patterson Road are
designed for users that need depths between 180-260 feet; building depths outside of
this range would not be marketable.
• The applicant has designed this project with shared truck courts between pairs of
rear -load buildings, and the buildings with the truck court between them fit well on the
site.
• The proposed buildings will be used by companies needing significant employee
parking, and thus further reduction to the overall car parking count will make the project
impracticable for the planned use.
• Stream S1 cuts the site from the northern property line toward the center of the site. Any
further avoidance of the stream results in substantial loss of building area and car
parking, which the economics of the project cannot withstand.
Property Size vs. Property Shape
The density (average building area per acre) of a warehouse development project is more a
function of the shape of the property, than its size. In addition to comparing warehouse projects
on their density like in the spreadsheet presented (dated April 25, 2019), the property shape
should be accounted for in the comparison. The spreadsheet presented by USACE on April 25,
2019 is slightly misleading, as it is comparing warehouse projects solely on their density, and
does not account for property shape in their planning.
There are numerous physical characteristics of warehouse development that limit the placement
of buildings on sites in a cookie -cutter fashion, and that ultimately dictate the overall density of
the project. These characteristics include:
Office - warehouses buildings are more rectangular than square, and sites must be able
to accommodate these rectangular configurations.
Different product types have building depths that are optimal for certain users. For
example, bulk distribution, cross -dock facilities can be as deep as 500-600 feet, whereas
rear load office/warehouse buildings need to be 180-260 feet deep in order to function
for smaller users.
Some building types require single -loading design with a dedicated truck court on one
side, while others are most marketable and financially realistic with a shared truck court
between a pair of buildings.
The applicant analyzed the spreadsheet provided by the USACE on April 25, 2019 and
identified a few errors in building sizes that were presented. Based on the applicants internal
market analysis data, those errors were corrected. Table 1 shows corrected figures for several
of the projects contained in the spreadsheet, as well as the nearest competitive project in
Huntersville that did not require a USACE permit.
Page 3 of 5

Patterson Rd May 16, 2019 Revised: May 20, 2019
Response to Request for Additional Information CWS Project No. 2018-0215; SAW -2018-02209
Table 1. Corrected market analvsis spreadsheet for warehouse proiects by size
Project Name
Project Area
Building Area (SF)
SF / AC
L&C-A
Silverpark North/Huck
Road
26
305,760
11,760
John Price Road
46.74
621,000
13,286
Airport South
54
583,987
10,815
Bryton Comm Ctr (no
permit)
47.42
659,937
13,917
The property shapes of the first three projects above are very irregular, with portions of the site
that will not accommodate any building area. It is this irregularity in the shapes of the sites that
contribute to less efficiency and lower building SF per acre. By contrast, the Bryton Corp Center
project is being developed on a very efficient site that is rectangular. As a result, the density of
that project is within 5% of the density of the Patterson Road project site, which also is an
efficiently -shaped site: largely rectangular parcels on both sides of the road.
The site size, site configuration, project plan type and amount and location of wetlands and
streams on each project area likely vary, which may also play a role in the amount of impacts
that a site may have. This amount of variation presents some error in using only total building
size and acres in comparing warehouse projects. For example, the 7800 Tuckaseegee Road
project is smaller in size, has less linear footage of stream, and a smaller building footprint, yet
the impacts to streams are 4% greater than those on the proposed Patterson Road Project site.
Therefore, the applicant reasserts that they have worked to the best of their ability to avoid and
minimize impacts from their proposed project in order for their project to be economically
reasonable as planned.
B. I have determined that parts of this project do not qualify for a Nationwide Permit 39
because the project would result in discharges (S3 and S4) of fill material into perennial
streams and/or intermittent streams for stormwater management facilities (see Regional
General Condition 4.1.1). Please revise the plans and/or PCN accordingly and resubmit
as necessary.
RESPONSE:
This comment has been retracted by USACE.
Email received from David Shaeffer, dated April 26, 2019.
Sean
Page 4 of 5

Patterson Rd May 16, 2019 Revised: May 20, 2019
Response to Request for Additional Information CWS Project No. 2018-0215; SAW -2018-02209
I received the voice message you left for me yesterday afternoon regarding item b. I was
looking at the wrong drawing so no need to respond to item b.
Sincerely,
David L. Shaeffer
Project Manager/Geographer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Office
Desk: 704-510-1437
We respectfully request your concurrence that the applicant has in good faith worked to avoid
and minimize impacts to onsite aquatic resources to the maximum extent practicable in order for
their project to be successful and that the project continues in your review for a Nationwide
Permit 39 based on our revised plan sets and reduced impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response to your questions on this project. Please do
not hesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at 704-408-1683, or through email at
[e-mail] should you have any questions or comments regarding these responses.
Sincerely,
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
Christine Geist, CE, PWS
Consulting Group Manager
Attachments: Revised PCN and Construction Sheets
Page 5 of 5

o�0a
rF�gQ�
Q�uU ,;;
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10, 2008
Page 1 of 15
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
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 ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
® Yes
❑ No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties? If yes, answer
1 h below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Patterson Road
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Huntersville
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
Page 1 of 15

3. Owner Information
Anne McElroy Griffin
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: William Vance McElroy Jr.
Donald R. Lee, Trustee of the Jane McElroy Lee Family Trust
Margaret Conn Horton and Hazeline Conn Moss
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 29338-961, 31011-756, 29338-973, 30373-29, 29338-976, 31011-731, 29338-964
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if N/A
applicable):
Anne McElroy Griffin, 16232 Leeward Ln, Huntersville, NC 28078
3d. Street address: William Vance McElroy Jr., 9547 Pembroke Rd, Huntersville, NC 28070
Lee Family Trust POC: Donald R. Lee, 166 Willow Valley Dr, Mooresville, NC 28115
Margaret Conn Horton & Hazeline Conn Moss, 267 Milton Turnpike, Milton, NY 12547
3e. City, state, zip: I (see above addresses)
Anne McElroy Griffin 704-827-7555
3f. Telephone no.: William Vance McElroy, Jr. 704-394-0472
Donald R. Lee, Trustee 704-607-3841
Margaret Conn Horton and Hazeline Conn Moss 875-795-2213
3g. Fax no.: I N/A
Anne McElroy Griffin memaw35(cDicloud.com
3h. Email address: William Vance McElroy, Jr. somersghent(a)aol.com
Donald R. Lee, Trustee dlee(cDclarkpatterson.com
Margaret Conn Horton and Hazeline Conn Moss Edhorton184(a)gmail.com
4. Applicant Information
4a. Applicant is:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name:
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information
5a. Name:
5b. Business name:
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Developer
Tracy White
McDonald Development Company
525 N. Tryon Street Suite 1600
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
704-378-8757
N/A
[e-mail]
Dan Zurlo
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc (CWS)
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
717-460-3466
704-527-1133
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 15

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

Page 4 of 15
boundaries will be maintained at a 2.5:1 gradient, at its steepest. Stormwater runoff from the buildings and parking lots
will be directed to the proposed onsite collection system and directed to on-site stormwater detention ponds for flow
detention and water quality improvement.
The Patterson Road project proposes unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters under Nationwide Permit (NWP)
No. 39 with the construction of a new industrial park. Grading and fill placement for site development will result in
temporary and permanent stream impacts, as well as, permanent wetland impacts. Proposed site development
includes fill placement in two streams, A and B, resulting in 498 If of permanent stream impacts (S1 & S2). An
additional 20 If of temporary fill stream impacts (S3) is proposed to prevent water quality pollution during fill placement
in the upstream channel. Temporary fill will be placed on the lower end of the permanent stream impacts to create an
impermeable dike for capturing stream flow and sediment that may be held in solution. Stream water will be pumped
from the pooled area at the dike and directed to a filter bag located in the uplands where sediment will be collected.
Clean stream water will be diverted from the filter bag back to the stream channel below the dike to maintain
hydrology during construction. A retaining wall is proposed at the downstream terminus of impacts to Stream A to
stabilize the stream and reduce the amount of grading needed for the parking lot, limiting impacts to Stream A.
Proposed site development includes fill placement in one wetland, CC, resulting in 0.016 -acre of permanent wetland
impacts (W1). The impacted wetland is forested and located in a natural crenulation, adjacent to a seasonal RPW
(Stream A).
The applicant requests a waiver of the 300 If limit on impacts to streams, as provided for in NWP 39, on the basis that
the proposed impacts will result in minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. Stream A and B
are both classified as intermittent and scored `Low' quality using NCSAM. Historic on-site land -use has included
clearing of forested areas, agricultural, and ditching, which has resulted in moderate to severe channel incision within
Stream A. Abandoned agricultural ditches were observed abutting and directed to Stream A, which are contributing
stormwater flows and sediment inputs. Recent field observations found that Stream A is moderately to severely
unstable and actively contributes sediment to downstream waters. Stream bed substrate is dominated by sand and
silt, indicative of active erosion in the stream channel. Stream bank heights were observed between 6 and 15 feet,
indicating active downcutting of the stream bed and active bank erosion. Several deep head cuts were observed in the
channel, indicating the stream bed is unstable. Macrobenthic populations were evaluated during site assessments,
and findings indicated low quality species in low abundance with poor diversity. The overall function of the affected
resource is relatively low, as its biological and chemical functions are degraded, and the stream system contributes to
water quality pollution (sediment) in the watershed; hydrology appears to be primarily stormwater driven. The relative
importance of Streams A and B to the region is low, as their primary contribution is stormwater conveyance and
support of riparian forested areas. Affected riparian forested areas have historically been impacted by timbering and
agriculture with a high degree of invasive species competition. The environmental setting in the vicinity of the NWP
activity is undeveloped -forested, residential, industrial, commercial development, and transportation.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations
by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for
this property / project (including all prior phases) in the
past?
Comments: The USACE completed a delineation site
review on January 18, 2019. An updated PJD package
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
was submitted to David Shaeffer of the USACE on
February 12, 2019 based on the delineation review. The
updated PJD package is attached to this PCN application,
and the ORM form has been updated to reflect the PJD
request along with the NWP #39.
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination,
®Preliminary E] Final
what type of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
Name (if known): Sean Martin / Dan Zurlo
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
The Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination has not been issued at this time.
Page 4 of 15

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

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Tempora T
W1 ®P ❑ T
Fill
Headwater Forest
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.016
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.016
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Fill
Stream A
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
4
485
S2 ®P ❑ T
Fill
Stream B
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
2
13
S3 ❑ P ®T
Fill
Stream A
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
4
20
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
518
3i. Comments: 498 If permanent and 20 If temporary of impacts.
Page 6 of 15

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑ PEI T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse El Tar -Pamlico F1 Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
re uired?
131 ❑P❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 15

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
Page 8 of 15

1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
To avoid and minimize adverse effects to jurisdictional waters to the maximum extent practicable the Patterson Road
site was delineated, and on-site aquatic features were verified by the USACE during a site visit on February 12, 2019.
A Concept Plan was developed by Bohler Engineering in early February of 2019, just prior to the Corps visit.
However, once the USACE verified on-site aquatic features, an alternative site plan (No.1) was developed using the
Concept Plan to reduce impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters. Alternative Plan No.1 was presented to the USACE,
USEPA, NCDEQ-DWR, and NCWRC for review as part of a permit pre -application meeting. The results of the pre -app
meeting determined the scope of the project was too narrow for using an Individual Permit. The USEPA and USACE
offered to consider waiving the Individual Permit threshold if stream impacts could be further reduced, allowing the
project to be permitted under a Nationwide Permit. Alternative Plan No.2 was developed following the pre -app
meeting, which significantly reduced the overall proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Due to
comments from the USACE, Alternative 3 was developed further reducing impacts to jurisdictional waters. Therefore,
Alternative Plan No.3 is the preferred plan in pursuance of an NWP No.39 with an IP waiver for the Patterson Road
project.
No -build Option: A no -build option was considered, which includes consideration of off-site alternatives. The
proposed park needs to connect to existing and planned roads to provide convenient access to 1-77 and 1-485,
and utilize existing municipal water & sewer, and local electric and gas utilities. A total of 17 sites were identified
during the initial market search, which was later narrowed down to three short list sites, including the Patterson
Road site. The other two short list sites (Everette Keith Rd and 6855 Old Statesville Rd) were deemed unsuitable
due to an irregular shaped property unsupportive for preferred building configuration/size and increased impacts
to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The Patterson Rd site supports the proposed facility configuration and
reduces the amount of impacts to jurisdictional waters. Therefore, the Patterson Road site is being purchased to
meet the growth and demand for commercial warehouse space in the Huntersville area. However, a no -build
option would not meet the project goals and is therefore eliminated from consideration.
• Concept Plan: The Concept Plan was developed on February 11, 2019 and maximizes the entire project site
boundary. The Concept Plan has a total of 960,460 sf or 22.05 ac of building footprint. Associated parking and
truck courts are scaled to the building footprint; larger building footprint requires more parking and larger truck
courts. This plan depicted two stormwater BMP detention basins located within three stream channels and fill
placement for site development within four stream channels and three wetlands. The total permanent impacts to
waters of the U.S. with the Concept Plan is estimated to be 994 If of stream and 0.054 ac of wetlands.
Alternative Plan No.1: Alternative No. 1 was developed following the USACE site delineation verification, and this
plan was presented to regulatory agencies during a permit pre -application meeting. Alternative Plan No. 1
reduced the building, parking, and truck court footprint, as well as, the stormwater BMP detention extent
compared to the Concept Plan. Total building footprint size is 906,600 sf or 20.8 ac. This plan depicts two
stormwater BMP detention basins located within three stream channels, but the basins were reduced in size due
to an overall reduction in site imperviousness. Total impacts to waters of the U.S. with Alternative No.1 is 794 If of
stream and 0.021 ac of wetlands.
Alternative Plan No.2: Alternative No.2 was developed following the regulatory agency permit pre -application
meeting in order to lower proposed impacts to waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable in pursuance
of an NWP No.39 with an IP waiver. Alternative No. 2 reconfigures parking areas, increases fill slopes to the
maximum allowable gradient (2.5:1), and changes the shape and extent of the stormwater BMP basins to avoid
stream impacts. This plan reduces proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters while maintaining the project purpose
and need. Total impacts to waters of the U.S. with Alternative No.2 is 636 If stream (616 If permanent) and 0.042
ac of wetlands.
Alternative Plan No.3, Preferred Alternative: Alternative No.3 was developed in response comments from David
Shaeffer of the USACE in order to lower proposed impacts to waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent
practicable in pursuance of an NWP No.39 with an IP waiver. Alternative No. 3 reconfigures parking areas,
increases fill slopes to the maximum allowable gradient (2.5:1), and proposes a retaining wall at the downstream
terminus of impacts to Stream A in order to reduce the amount of grading necessary for the on-site parking lot.
This plan reduces proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters while maintaining the project purpose and need.
Total impacts to waters of the U.S. with Alternative No.2 is 518 If stream (498 If permanent) and 0.016 ac of
wetlands.

b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Temporary fill placement below the area of permanent stream fill will be used to prevent water quality pollution during
fill placement in the upstream channel. Temporary fill will be placed on the lower end of the permanent stream impacts
to create an impermeable dike for capturing stream flow and sediment that may be held in solution. Stream water will
be pumped from the pooled area at the dike and directed to a filter bag located in the uplands where sediment will be
collected. Clean stream water will be diverted from the filter bag back to the stream channel below the dike to maintain
hydrology during construction. Following construction, temporary fill will be removed from the channel and disturbed
stream banks will be returned to original height and slope, matted with a bio -degradable matting, and seeded with a
native erosion control and riparian seed mix.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
® Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
® DWQ ® Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
®Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
® Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
498 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
® warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 10 of 15

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation? If yes, you will have to fill out this entire form — please
contact the State for more information.
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 11 of 15

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
Page 12 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
65-70%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The subject property is located within the Town of Huntersville and will be required to meet the stormwater
requirements quality requirements set forth by the Town as well as the Post Construction Stormwater Ordinance
which was developed for the Town of Huntersville by Mecklenburg County. Low Impact Develpoment (LID) is
required by the Town when more than 12% BUA (built upon area) threshold is exceeded in order to provide additional
water quality treatment from runoff. BMP's shall be designed to achieve 85% TSS removal treat 50% of runoff from
the 1St inch of rainfall.
Below is a summary of the post construction detention requirements for the Town of Huntersville for high density
projects. Both Volume Control analysis and Peak Control analysis is required. The post -construction control measures
must manage the increase in volume for the 1 -year, 24-hour storm event (Volume Control). In addition, attenuation of
the 2 -year and 10 -year, 24-hour storm events are required such that the post -developed flow is less than the pre -
developed flow (Peak Control).
In order to meet the Town and County stormwater requirements, two (2) stormwater detention ponds have been
chosen for the BMP. Each pond will be generally located at the low points of the property and sized appropriately
based on the impervious area of the new development. Runoff for each phase of the project will be directed to the
stormwater ponds where water will be detained for a period of time before exiting via an outlet control structure
designed to reduce the runoff velocity to pre -development conditions. The stormwater ponds will also serve to achive
the desired storwmater quality requirements by providing an area for TSS (total suspended solids) to settle prior to
exiting the pond. In addition to the ponds, interior bioretention areas andvegetated swales will be implemented to
reduce the volume of the post -construction 1 -yr, 24-hour storm event.
Western Site:
Pond Total Volume: 375,000 cf
BMP Volume Controlled: 76,500 cf
Flow: Pre- Post- Volume Controlled
2 -year 3.5 cfs 3.43 cfs 135,000 cf
10 -year 27.8 cfs 24.2 cfs 212,000 cf
Eastern Site:
Pond Total Volume: 455,000 cf
BMP Volume Controlled: 79,000 cf
Flow: Pre- Post- Volume Controlled
2 -year 3.7 cfs 3.2 cfs 164,000 cf
10 -year 29.0 cfs 25.0 cfs 262,000 cf
With the proposed pond facilities, the peak flow for the 2 -year and 10 -year storm events are being reduced below the
pre -developed flow condition. Further, the volume in the facility is adequate to manage and detain the BMP volume
requirement for the proposed impervious areas. As such, it is the opinion of the engineer that the stormwater
management and best management practice requirements of the post -construction condition will be satisfied with the
proposed facilities.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
® Certified Local Government
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
Page 13 of 15

C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Town of Huntersville
® Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 14 of 15

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This will be a single and complete project.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The project will be served by the City of Charlotte municipal sewer.
Page 15 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5.
Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a.
Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b.
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c.
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on February 26,
2019 to determine the presence of any federally -listed, candidate, endangered, threatened, or critical habitat within the
project limits and surrounding area. Based on the NCNHPO review (attached), there are no records for rare species,
important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary.
On August 2, 2018 and January 21, 2019 CWS staff scientists performed a pedestrian survey examining the project site
for potentially occurring protected species and supporting habitat. The USFWS Endangered, Threatened, FSOC, and
Candidate Species website for Mecklenburg County, https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/mecklenburg.htmi, was
consulted prior to the on-site field investigation to determine which protected species are listed as occurring or potentially
occurring within the project vicinity. The results of the CWS field investigation are attached in the PETS Report. CWS
concludes the proposed project will not affect federally listed species or species are exempt. A copy of the PETS Report
was sent to the Asheville USFWS office for concurrence; no response has been received at this time.
6.
Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a.
Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.htm1
7.
Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a.
Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NCSHPO web -mapper: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. A letter requesting cultural resource review was forwarded to the
NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources on 11/27/18. A response letter (attached) received on 1/4/19 indicates
a review of the project was completed, and they are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, they have no comment on the project as proposed.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a.
Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b.
If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Flood Risk Information System: Panel 4549
Dan Zurlo-
5-20-19
Agent's Printed Name
Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent authorization letter is attached.
Page 16 of 15

EASEEMENT ; 8' A,
X800- °\
''—� nDJ ,y
T
---�-------, -�,-,, .,DH$EKAE� TOWERS
--------------- --- S\Alterna1 tive 3: Preferred
/
/
/
;'
11 / / / O I O ' / , ,
/ I
804 � / / � ; , ' ; SHO �y � ; e rn a I ve \ , /' /' , /' / ' , � ' , , ♦ . �
0l�`'' / / _ /'�`'' HO \ l hO
\ \
�0% _77/ —I - l , , HO
�"'IOW°H810- ii 7\ -_ i \\ \
' / i `♦ ♦ 1 n1 ♦` - � / I l / / , `♦_-\ SHO\ / `,
l / I l I , , I / / / Op ♦ / \ \ \
/
Hp
♦ C
PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ` OOI % /' ' �o op
BUILDING 400 - _ sob ®----" ! / / `� / I `SO �►�''�I _ / '' �Ho - ��tio,
±191,400 SF - COQ - / l ��,011 / / / 1 �,(( ------- --
—'
FFE:±801.20' H \H
\ 1 4\\.
v rn rn \\ \ \\ ` \ I 796 870.00' / ' f / ,\ / \ ♦\ \ ♦\ ♦\ ,
796It
782-"""
_
780—
-
/
• ---- � _
/ --77$'//
----------- 7
` `♦ \ \ \ /moo X92 % / / : : / :_-'1 r� ' / ' ' '' '' K--------------------
\--------------- /
530.00' ----
\`♦ moi— ``� ` ``\``♦ \ \ \ � `� ^ \ l \\ \`\ \ \ / /' i � ,'' / ,' / , i / / _/ , 6
Impact removed
Ev \ N PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL / / / I
BUILDING 300
(PER CIPS DELINElON7 �, _ ;
/ - ; IZZ
' +95 400 SF - ,-
\ _ — r O / I , . I / , I / /
---. _ act /
., , ` . -FFE 797 0 I ,' ,' ,' ! ,' '�
20' 6,
`ermanen m �w
CO UFFE ± ; " 0.016 ac due to fill p ,-' / -------
-X
----- 1h ;
\1�6 hg �� 6 ^ - - — ; , E-.. - U� BLUE-
-- f � `� � EX. WETLAND AREA
------ �E.t. Ww1_f-X. 3 POST
1 a 7 ER CWS DELINEATIONS COiySTR(/CTIO SUFIER LINE_S3?>�EAM
ToMITJEN
(PER CW,�
III Z IM,
` �` �ti ( c ,-' NOT APPROVED FOR
PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL �9c 1go ° 1 ; 07 ; �o —
' ---- — - -768
_-- ^co ^ iI 7s8_7j4 7786 4 7
! / l/I
CONSTRUCTION
X66------------ BUILDING 200 -------- PROJECT NO.: NCC
182042
768-------------' DRAWN BY: RB
CHECKED BY: DH --770---_ FFE: ±796.00'
/ N
/'' / /'--___—--- -----------
----_- -
, / / i /7 \\\ 1 i82 ; 0 _ _ I\
?_I =——_`
\
� .
\ DATE' 3/12/2019
-------------------772 4 100'
774--- o SCALE
O CAD I.D.: SSO
------------
___------------ --------------_'
---------778------- PR9PFD U07.
480.0 ''RETAININUwALL
-780-
------------------82
/ " / 784------- ---
- 786 -----------'
o ' �' 784 Bq / ' /' 0�_ E ENNI
ISLAND / 1
/ —
/ PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL /' ___ ----- P �IiAM\
/ ,788-------------' - /
/ - • BUILDING 600 -/
.790— — r � - "�" __-- � o ±210,000 SF
, , , --
S2: Permanent Impact ES;' ;
1
13 If due to fill '� - ,-' _ / L.Y 120, / ;' _
9 I,/ o o ^
' 7 4
--------------
0 - I' � • o vo 798 rn`� b ' '' i 1 5 ; / i ,' 1 � �� S�WtR
/ ' I 49p.00' 0 0.00'
- '
/ II SEME /
,.796-`-
' 1 o PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL � � I I � ,
BUILDING 100 Iso ^ 0
-88,200 SF 762
/ + 1 /
��l / FFE: ±799.00' / I 'Bo j 1 / / S1: Permanent Impact ,' I - -_ ,
485 If due to fill -------
9, I' ------ 764 ,
9°
D L E
`� \`♦ 800\ \`8�0 ` • _ - o ; ; I , i 80 / i ; ; I i I \ h i ; I ; ; ` ;44 STRfA' J D) LL4
1 ♦ o / I I I I / , 'l80 ' J 1 1 I I 1 I, I ,I ,/ , / f
--- 6O \ / I I ; / `\ I \ ; i I ; 1 / \ J NCBELS P-1132
800
top
-- ' \
1927 S TRYON STREET, SUITE
310
------------ CHARLOTTE,
NC 28203
PROP. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
j i I l
Phone: [phone] _ I I 1 I ' ' 'J J ; ; ; Fax. [phone]
BUILDING 500 1
\
1 \ ? aoo216 00o SF I ,I `�, / [e-mail]
800 FFE: 786.00
+
D f�
� i \ �O 0 � o s PARCEL: _13.40 ACRES
' \800
\ I 9d I-800- 0—=� .'
00
98-"-
4 co
i 6
1 1
�� ---------- \ ' bQD 784 / - `. 8\ `\` i 1 1'' i I
790
1
- ------
,
1�0 \ w
JA A
- IMQg''
yam,
Ii /s l� 1r
- ` \
\\25\\\ 0 \` 1 ' 1100`\
REVISIONS
REV
DATE
COMMENT
BY
1
5/2/19
ADD WALL -
REDUCE IMPACT
DRH
------ ' - \
\a„ `\10th,' '1
H:\2018\NCC182042\1DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\USACE IP SET\NCC182042SS2 CGU (USACE VISIT) REVISED WETLANDS.DWG PRINTED BY: DANIEL.HINES 5.02.19 @ 5:53 PM LAST SAVED BY: DANIEL.HINES

SCALE (FEET
100 400 600 800
.�'i,j f i 51:fi90tt
�y 52 t3H
0.001 acres
\
S2 (Stream 9) _
S'Rar,rxei
Yro,a�firreem�m,
�;,
wroaot ac
�
ws: oaz
W2 Wetlantl BB _
T� iw neva iR
0.02acres
0.001 acres
\
S2 (Stream 9) _
S'Rar,rxei
S1 Stream A)
698 linear feet ;\;;

DWR
DM on of Wmer Resources