The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20131191 Ver 1_Individual_20131113CL rWa Le r ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. www cwenv com November 12, 2013 Mr. William Elliot US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -2638 NOV 13 2313 Ms. Karen Higgins NC Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 RE: Ingles Markets, Inc. Ingles Store #77 — Spartanburg Highway Henderson County, North Carolina Mr. Elliot and Ms. Higgins, The attached Individual Permit application is being submitted on behalf of Ingles Markets, Inc. represented my Mr. Randy Jameson. Ingles is seeking permit authorization for impacts associated with redevelopment of the existing Ingles store located on Spartanburg Highway in Hendersonville, Henderson County, North Carolina. Should you have any questions regarding the attached permit application and supplemental information please do not hesitate to contact me at 828 -698 -9800. A copy of this package has been sent to Mr. David McHenry of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Mr. Bryan Tompkins of the US Fish and Wildlife Service for review. A copy of this application has also been submitted to the NC Division of Water Quality, Asheville Regional Office. Respectfully, - 0000 -�-- Rebekah L. Newton Project Biologist R (t R. Clement Rid e, P.W.S Principal Copy Furnished: NC Division of Water Quality; Asheville Regional Office — Tim Fox NC Wildlife Resources Commission — David McHenry US Fish and Wildlife Service — Bryan Tompkins 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, NC 28792 828- 698 -9800 Tel 828 - 698 -9003 Fax Individual Permit Application for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit and North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification November 2013 Applicant: Ingles Markets, Inc. Ingles Markets, Inc. Attn: Mr. Randy Jameson 2913 US Highway 70 West Black Mountain, NC 28711 Prepared by: C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 828 -698 -9800 CLearWater Department of the Army Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers Attn: Ken Jolly, Chief Regulatory Division PO Box 1890 Wilmington, NC 284024890 -and- NC Division of Water Quality Attn: Ian McMillan 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 I, the current landowner /managing partner of the property identified below, hereby authorize ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on my behalf as my agent duffing the processing of permits to impact Wetlands and Water of the US that are regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. CEC is authorized to provide supplemental information needed for permit processing at the request of the USACE or DWQI . - Property Owner of Record: 11'1alQ A/� c, t" ar " . ( pv- Property Owner Address: _AO( P5 U5 f- W q -70 W 13 1ci ck 03mYl i rl, NC, 90-7 i Phone Number: , Property Locat�ri :' """'�%7 k -7 O S x-6)4 r nelson Me, *- -$7319 Owner/Managing partner Signature: Date: 'J --� 14-1 Q 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville. NC 28792 Phone: 828-698-9800 Fax: 828-698-9003 www.cwenv.com U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS APPUCATiON FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710 -0003 33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW -CO4; EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 2013 Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing Instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and ma'mtairi g the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Departrnent of Defense, Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project ( 0710-0 003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding arty other provision of law, no person shall be subjed to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information If it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Ad, Section 4D4, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, Section 103.33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320 -332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form w0l be used In evaluating the application for a permit Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal taw. Submission Of requested inbrration is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. (ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS) 1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE R� ��IJV E f 3 L.itJ 4. DATE APPLKAI TION COMPLETE MPAIS BELOW TO BERLLED BYAPPiUCAN7) S. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent Is not required) First - Randy middle - fast - Jameson First - R Middle - Clement Last - Riddle Company - Ingles Markets, Inc. Company - ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. E-mail Address - E-mal Address - clement@cwenv.eom 6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS: 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS: Address - 2913 US Highway 70 West Address- 224 South Grove Street, Suite F City - Black Mountain State - NC ZIP-28711 Country-USA City - Hendersonville State - NC Zip - 28792 Country -USA 7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOs, WAREA CODE a. Residence b. Business c. Fax a. Residence b. Business c. Fax 828-669 -2941 828 -698 -9800 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION 11. 1 hereby authorize. to act In my behalf as my agent in the processing of Oda app&ation and to furdsh, upon request. supPlementah inforrmation Ih support of this permR tc� -a5 -13 5IGNATJW,aFJkPPLlCANT DATE NAME, LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY 12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) Ingles (Store #77) 13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (If applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (If applicable) /_ 2 Johnson's Drainage Ditch Address Spartanburg Highway (y 1S. LOCATION OF PROJECT Latitude: -N 35306239 Longilude: •W - 82.456074 City - Hendersonville State- NC Zip- 28792 16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see a>strtrGiorts) State Tax Parcel ID 9568 -94 -0252 Municipality City of Hendersonville - Township - Range - V-r.v r%imm '4443, UL, 1 [U7[ PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3 17. DIRECTIONS TO 111E SITE See Section 1.1 of permit application. 18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features) See Section 5.0 of permit application. 19. Project Purpose (Describe ft reason or purpose of the project, see instructions) See Section 4.0 of permit application USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20. Reason(s) for Discharge See Section 5.0 of permit application. 21. Type(s) of Mate" Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards: Type Type Type Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount to Cubic Yards Concrete box culvert; -490 CY 22. Surface Area In Acres of Wetlands or Odw waters Filled (see instructions) Acres or Linear Feet 553 linear feet (253 linear feet of replacement and 300 linear feet of new impact). 23. Description ofAvoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions) See Section 6.0 in the permit application. ENG FORM 4345. OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3 24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? QYes NNo IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK 25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc, Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody In more Ulan can ba ewww here, pease Mach a rupplanot r rte. a. Address- See application. City. State - Zip - b. Address - City - State - Zip - c. Address- City - State - ZIP - d. Address - City - State - Zip - e. Address - City - State - Zip - 26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals✓Denials received from other Federal, Stale. or Local Agencies for Work Described In This Application. AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL! IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED NUMBER Would include btA Is rot restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits 27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described In this application. I car>r'fy that Dili bdomhaton in this application is complete and accurate. I hather certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the appliant. "Nmt�� _11 —t1 -13 SIGNAMJBWF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement In block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and v4dully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fad or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. ENG FORM 1345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3 Adjoining Property Owners William A Pace, Jr. 1400 Spartanburg Highway Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 City of Hendersonville 145 5th Ave. E Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Maverick, LLC 117 W Patrick St. Frederick, MD 21701 1994 Pace Family Ltd Partnership 619 S Grove St. Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Gary and Cindy Jones 1111 Asheville Highway Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 Edward Jones 323 Lawn Ave. Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Anne Pace Washburn PO Box 100 Lake Lure, North Carolina 28746 MC Chadwick Corners, LLC 2504 Maybank Dr. Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 CLearWaLer C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. www.cwenv.com November 12, 2013 Mr. William Elliot US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -2638 Ms. Karen Higgins NC Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 RE: Ingles Markets, Inc. Ingles Store #77 — Spartanburg Highway Henderson County, North Carolina Mr. Elliot and Ms. Higgins, 2 ®131191 The attached Individual Permit application is being submitted on behalf of Ingles Markets, Inc. represented my Mr. Randy Jameson. Ingles is seeking permit authorization for impacts associated with redevelopment of the existing Ingles store located on Spartanburg Highway in Hendersonville, Henderson County, North Carolina. Should you have any questions regarding the attached permit application and supplemental information please do not hesitate to contact me at 828 -698 -9800. A copy of this package has been sent to Mr. David McHenry of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Mr. Bryan Tompkins of the US Fish and Wildlife Service for review. A copy of this application has also been submitted to the NC Division of Water Quality, Asheville Regional Office. Respectfully, Rebekah L. Newton R. Zme Rid PeP. W .S Project Biologist Principal Copy Furnished: NC Division of Water Quality; Asheville Regional Office — Tim Fox UFA NC Wildlife Resources Commission — David McHenry j? US Fish and Wildlife Service — Bryan Tompkins :@: 0:0 w 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, NC 28792 828 - 698 -9800 Tel 828 - 698 -9003 Fax �k- _ NOV 132013 Individual Permit Application for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit and North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification November 2013 Applicant: Ingles Markets, Inc. Ingles Markets, Inc. Attn: Mr. Randy Jameson 2913 US Highway 70 West Black Mountain, NC 28711 Prepared by: C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 828 -698 -9800 FNO--- CLearWater Department of the Army Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers Attn: Ken Jolly, Chief Regulatory Division PO Box 1890 Wilmington, NC 28402 -1890 -and- NC Division of Water Quality Attn: Ian McMillan 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 I, the current landowner /managing partner of the property identified below, hereby authorize ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on my behalf as my agent during the processing of permits to impact Wetlands and Water of the US that are regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. CEC is authorized to provide supplemental information needed for permit processing at the request of the USACE or DWQ. Property Owner of Record: via Ier, Ma. I pit, . Property Owner Address: Ac o:5 to F WU -70 W Phone Number: Property Locd 0, . c t: Owner/Managing partner Signature: Date: 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, NC 28792 Phone: 82&698 -9800 Fax: 928-698-9003 www.cwenv.com Adjoining Property Owners William A Pace, Jr. Gary and Cindy Jones 1400 Spartanburg Highway 1111 Asheville Highway Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 City of Hendersonville 145 5th Ave. E Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Maverick, LLC 117 W Patrick St. Frederick, MD 21701 1994 Pace Family Ltd Partnership 619 S Grove St. Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Edward Jones 323 Lawn Ave. Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Anne Pace Washburn PO Box 100 Lake Lure, North Carolina 28746 MC Chadwick Corners, LLC 2504 Maybank Dr. Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710 -0003 33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW -CO -R. EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 2013 Public reporting for this collection of information Is estimated to average 11 hours per response, Including the time for reviewing Instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project ( 0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of Information if 4 does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, Section 103.33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320.332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used In evaluating the application for a pemtit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission of requested infomration is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be Issued. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and characterof fire proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in 1411 will be returned. (ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS) 1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE (fTEMS BELOW TO BEALLED BYAPPLWA" 5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (agerd Is not required) First - Randy Middle - Last - Jameson First - R. Middle-Clement Last - Riddle Company - Ingles Markets, Inc. Company - ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. E-mail Address - E-mail Address - c)ement@cwenv.com 6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS: 8. AGENTS ADDRESS: Address- 2913 US Highway 70 West Address- 224 South Grove Street, Suite F City - Black Mountain State - NC Zip-28711 Country-USA City - Hendersonville State - NC ZIP - 28792 Country -USA 7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. WAREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NO& WAREA CODE a. Residence b. Business c. Fax a. Residence b. Business c. Fax 828 -669 -2941 828 -698 -9800 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION 11. 1 hereby authorize, to act In my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon requesL supplemental information 11h support of this permit ticatio SIGNA'MAdX_V_FJkPFLIGANT DATE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY 12 PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) Ingles (Store #77) 13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable) Johnson's Drainage Ditch Address Spartanburg Highway 15. LOCATION OF PROJECT Latitude: -N 35.306239 Longitude: •W - 82.456074 CRY - Hendersonville State- NC Zip- 28792 16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) State Tax Parcel ID 9568 -94 -0252 Municipality City of Hendersonville Section - Township - Range - r-nv rvrawn gs4a, vV r Lu7Z PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3 17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE See Section 1.1 of permit application. 18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features) See Section 5.0 of permit application. 19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions) See Section 4.0 of permit application. USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED ANDJOR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20. Resson(s) for Discharge See Section 5.0 of permit application. 21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards: Type Type Type Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Concrete box culvert; -490 CY 22. Surface Area In Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions) Acres or Linear Feet 553 linear feet (253 linear feet of replacement and 300 linear feet of new impact). 23. Description of Avoidance, Minimaation. and Compensation (see instrucdons) See Section 6.0 in the permit application. EMU FORM 4WA, OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3 24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ZNo IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK 25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc, Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody In more man can be entew here, pMm anach a suppiemanml iaQ. a. Address- See application. city - State - Zip - b. Address- CRY - State - Zip - c. Address- City - State - zip - d. Address - City - State - Zip - e. Address - city - State - Zip - 28. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described In This Application. AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED Would Include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits 27. Application Is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I oertify that this Information In this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant IA F APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT + (1 _ I DATE The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent If the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, In any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and wfllfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT ....................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Project Location ......................................................................... ..............................1 1.2 Jurisdictional Waters .................................................................. ..............................1 2.0 BACKGROUND /PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY ............................... ..............................2 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................... ..............................2 3.1 Streams and Wetlands ................................................................ ..............................2 3.2 Fish and Wildlife Use of the Project Site ................................... ..............................2 3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................... ..............................2 3.4 Cultural Resources ..................................................................... ..............................3 3.5 Floodplain .:................................................................................ ..............................4 4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE ........................................................................... ..............................5 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ........................................ ..............................5 6.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................. ..............................6 6.1 Alternatives ................................................................................ ..............................7 6.1.1 Abandonment of Existing Store and Developing a New Site ......................7 6.1.2 Combining the Existing Ingles Site and Food Lion Site .............................7 6.1.3 Redevelopment with a Smaller Store ............................. ..............................7 6.1.4 No- Action ...................................................................... ..............................8 6.1.5 As- Proposed ................................................................... ..............................8 6.2 Avoidance and Minimization ..................................................... ..............................8 6.3 Alternatives Conclusion ............................................................. ..............................8 7.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN ............................................... ..............................9 7.1 NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) ........................... ..............................9 8.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES ..........10 8.1 Factual Determination ............................................................... .............................10 8.2 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem................................................................................. .............................10 8.3 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem .........................12 8.4 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites .............................. .............................13 8.5 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics .................... ............................... I4 8.6 Summary ................................................................................... .............................15 9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS ....................................... .............................16 9.1 Conservation ............................................................................. .............................16 9.2 Economics ................................................................................. .............................16 9.3 Aesthetics .................................................................................. .............................16 9.4 General Environmental Concerns ............................................. .............................17 9.5 Wetlands ................................................................................... .............................17 9.6 Historic Properties .................................................................... .............................17 9.7 Fish and Wildlife Values .......................................................... .............................17 9.8 Flood Hazards ........................................................................... .............................18 9.9 Floodplain Values ..................................................................... .............................18 9.10 Land Use ................................................................................... .............................18 9.11 Navigation ................................................................................. .............................19 9.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion .................................................... .............................19 9.13 Recreation ................................................................................. .............................19 9.14 Water Supply and Conservation ............................................... .............................19 9.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management) ................................ .............................19 9.16 Energy Needs ............................................................................ .............................19 9.17 Safety ........................................................................................ .............................19 9.18 Food and Fiber Production ........................................................ .............................19 9.19 Mineral Needs ........................................................................... .............................20 9.20 Considerations of Property Ownership ..................................... .............................20 9.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public .............................................. .............................20 10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .............................. .............................21 11.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................... .............................21 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map Figure 3 Floodplain Map Figure 4 Impact Map Figure 5 Typical Cross - Section LIST OF APPENDICES Attachment A Jurisdictional Determination Form Attachment B Site Photographs Attachment C EEP Acceptance Letter Attachment D No -Rise Concurrence Letter iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT The applicant, Ingles Markets, Inc., proposes to redevelop the existing Ingles (Store #77) on Spartanburg Highway in Hendersonville, Henderson County, North Carolina. The site currently consists of an Ingles grocery store, a CVS drug store, and associated parking. 1.1 Proiect Location The Ingles project site is located in Hendersonville, Henderson County, North Carolina. To access the site from Asheville, take I -26 East to Exit 53 (Upward Road). Turn right onto Upward Road and travel approximately 1.3 miles, then turn right onto Spartanburg Highway. Travel approximately 2 miles and the project site is on the left near the intersection of Spartanburg Highway and Greenville Highway. In general, the site is bordered to the north by Spartanburg Highway, to the south and west by the Johnsons Drainage Ditch and unnamed tributary, and to the east by the Chadwick Corners shopping center. A site vicinity map (Figure 1) and USGS topographic map (Figure 2) are attached for review. 1.2 Jurisdictional Waters Tributaries on site include the Johnson Drainage Ditch and an unnamed tributary to the Johnson Drainage Ditch. A Jurisdictional Determination Form for the site is included for review (Attachment A). The tributaries flow to Mud Creek which is a tributary to the French Broad River. The French Broad River is a navigable - in -fact water at the Wilson Bridge east of Brevard, North Carolina. Tributaries on site are classified by the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) as class "C" waters. There are no wetlands located on site. The table below summarizes the amounts of jurisdictional waters on site. On -site Totals Feature Amount Unit Stream 860 linear feet Wetlands 0 acres Open Water 0 acres An "Existing Site Conditions" section (Section 3.0) has been included in this application for review and further describes the jurisdictional waters on site. 2.0 BACKGROUND /PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY The existing Ingles (Store #77) was built in July of 1980. It is approximately 46,379 square feet and has no full deli/bakery, pharmacy, cafe, associated gas station, etc. The current store has 254 parking spaces. Two culverts are existing on site totaling approximately 253 linear feet. To CEC's knowledge, the site has no prior project history with the Corps. 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The proposed project site is entirely developed. Existing infrastructure on site includes: an Ingles grocery store, a CVS drug store, two small warehouse buildings (now empty), and associated infrastructure such as parking, entranceways, and utilities. 3.1 Streams and Wetlands Streams on site include the Johnson Drainage Ditch and an unnamed tributary to the Johnson Drainage Ditch. There are approximately 860 linear feet of stream channel within the project boundary. In general, the Johnson Drainage Ditch flows south to north and eventually into the French Broad River via Mud Creek. The French Broad River is a navigable -in -fact water at the Wilson Bridge east of Brevard, North Carolina. The Johnson Drainage Ditch is a historical agricultural ditch. There are currently 253 linear feet of culvert pipe located at the site. Photographs of the site showing the existing culverts are included for review (Attachment B). There are no wetlands located on site. 3.2 Fish and Wildlife Use of the Proiect Site Wildlife species inhabiting the site include those typically found in urban settings. Site - specific studies and inventories documenting species utilization of the project area have not been conducted. 3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species CEC has conducted a file review of records maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). The desktop literature review involved a review of the FWS list of protected species in Henderson County and the NHP Element Occurrence Data on which NHP identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for a specific locale. The FWS lists 8 species as occurring in Henderson County. The NHP database identifies 42 element occurrences (EO) within a 2 -mile radius of the project site; 10 EOs, comprised of 5 species, hold Federal status and are subject to Section 7 consultation. The species included in the EOs are listed below. 2 Common Name Scientific Name Status white fringeless orchid Platanthera inte rilabia candidate mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia 'onesii endangered bunched arrowhead Sa ittaria asciculata endangered small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides threatened swamp pink Helonias bullata threatened Suitable habitat for the species listed was not observed at the project site. It is the opinion of CEC that federally protected species are not likely to be present within the project boundary. As such, redevelopment of the proposed Ingles project site is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. The FWS will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on threatened and endangered species. 3.4 Cultural Resources A desktop review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and available on SHPO's HPOWEB GIS Service indicates 11 historic properties or historic districts within 1 mile of the Ingles project site. The closest property is known as the Brookland and is approximately 0.38 mile from the proposed project site. The properties and/or districts identified are listed below. Site Name Site ID Brookland HN0041 Mary Mills Coxe House HN0054 West Side Historic District HN0250 Lenox Park Historic District HN0170 Main Street Historic District HN0489 Reece House HN0055 King-Waldrop House HN0049 Aloah Hotel HN0045 Clarke- Hobbs - Davidson House HN0048 Grey Hosiery Mill HN0135 The Cedars HN0046 It is the opinion of CEC, that the proposed activity, on the currently developed site, is not likely to threaten the integrity of these sites. The SHPO will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on cultural resources. 3 3.5 Floodplain Designated floodplains are present along the Johnson Drainage Ditch within the project boundary (FEMA Map Panels 9568J, effective October 2, 2008). A map showing the floodway and 100 -year floodplain boundary is included for review (Figure 3). 4 4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE The basic project purpose of the proposed redevelopment at the Ingles site is to provide commercial /retail services. More specifically, the overall project purpose of the proposed redevelopment at Ingles is to redevelop the site with a new Ingles store designed and built to current Ingles Market standards which includes a larger store and Ingles gas station. 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT The proposed project calls for the demolition and redevelopment of the approximately 7- acre site. The existing 46,379- square foot store will be replaced with a 77,427- square foot store. The new store will include additional services such as a full deli and bakery, pharmacy, cafe, and associated gas station. Number of parking spaces will increase from 254 spaces to 277 spaces. The project will include the installation of an approximately 553 linear foot box culvert which will replace approximately 253 linear feet of existing culvert and add 300 linear feet of new culvert (Figure 4). Impacts associate with the proposed project are identified in the table below. Impact Existing Culvert New Stream Impact Total (Replacement and Length to be Replaced New Culvert 1 253 LF (two culverts) 300 LF 553 LF 5 6.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the applicant to assist the Wilmington District, Corps in evaluating the application for authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 at the proposed project site. An analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) requirements for consideration of alternatives as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below. The Guidelines' alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain "sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information needed to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the Guidelines is commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact (as determined by the functions of the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed activity) and the scope /cost of the project." [See Corps/EPA Memorandum, to the Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p. 2, dated August 23, 1994, hereinafter the "Memorandum. "] As noted in the Memorandum on pages 3 -4, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." [See Memorandum.] "If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Register 85343 (December 24, 1980).] Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).] Clarification is provided in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be considered in the determination of practicability. An alternative site is considered "available" if it is presently owned by the applicant or "could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2). The intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall scone and cost of the proposed proiect. The term economic [for which the term "costs" was substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines. 31 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an explicit, but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic sites are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are environmentally preferable." Of course, the general requirements that impacts to the aquatic system not be acceptable also applies. This presumption "...contains sufficient flexibility to reflect circumstances of unusual cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December 24, 1980). It is clear from these stipulations that a preferable alternative may allow filling in certain wetland areas and subsequent mitigation and/or management of other areas. 6.1 Alternatives In addition to the project as proposed, the applicant considered four other alternatives. Each alternative is discussed below. 6. 1.1 Abandonment of Existing Store and Developing a New Site The applicant considered abandoning the existing store and developing a new store at a new location; however, parcels of land large enough to support an Ingles store in a location that serves the same target market/population (downtown Hendersonville and Flat Rock) were generally not available. Immediately to the northwest of the existing store is densely developed with businesses in downtown Hendersonville and surrounding residential housing. Generally, large parcels of land are not available in this area. Parcels southeast of the existing store were potentially available; however, developing a store southeast would encroach on the existing store on Upward Road and move out of the target market. For these reasons, it was determine that this was not a practicable alternative for development. 6.1.2 Combining the Existing Ingles Site and Food Lion Site The applicant considered combining the existing Ingles site and the adjacent Food Lion site (currently abandon) which is immediately south of (behind) the Ingles. This option would make the redevelopment site larger and replace two outdated grocery stores with one new store that would front Greenville Highway. This option would allow Ingles to maintain the same general location and target market. The owners of the Food Lion site felt that the site had increased commercial value and commanded a premium price for the parcel. Ingles attempted to negotiate a price that was consistent with development goals; however, a selling price could not be agreed upon. Additionally, this plan would have included stream impact and/or relocation that was estimated to be approximately 1,000 feet. Because the site was financially unattainable and stream impacts were predicted to be higher, it was determine that this was not a practicable alternative for development. 6.1.3 Redevelopment with a Smaller Store The applicant considered redevelopment of the site with a smaller store. The existing store is approximately 46,379 square feet. A conceptual plan was developed for a 50,000 square foot store which would increase the size of the 7 store by approximately 3,620 square feet. A store of that size would lack the additional services currently offered in newer Ingles stores (full deli/bakery, pharmacy, cafe, etc.). Without the ability to offer additional services, the increase of only 3,620 square feet is not feasible considering the amount of resources required to redevelop the site. It was determine that this was not a practicable alternative for development. 6.1.4 No- Action This option would include leaving the store as it is and pursuing no redevelopment at the site. The existing Ingles is outdated and suffers from It deferred maintenance. Maintaining the store in its current state is costly and inefficient. Additionally, the existing Ingles store is directly across the road from a newly developed Harris Teeter store. In its current condition and without additional services offered, the existing Ingles cannot compete with the Harris Teeter. It was determine that this was not a practicable alternative to development. 6.1.5 As- Proposed The project as proposed includes the redevelopment of the approximately 7 -acre site with a 77,427 - square foot store and 277 parking spaces. The new store will included additional services such as a full deli and bakery, pharmacy, cafe, and associated gas station that will make it competitive in its existing location/market. 6.2 Avoidance and Minimization The proposed project is the redevelopment of a previously developed site. The project as proposed avoids 253 linear feet of new stream impact by replacing existing culverts at the site. Additionally, the site plan makes use of retaining walls at the site to further minimize impacts. Per City of Hendersonville ordinances, the site would require 388 parking spaces. The applicant received a parking variance and has been able to reduce the number of parking spaces required to 277 spaces further reducing the disturbed area at the site. 6.3 Alternatives Conclusion This discussion of avoidance and minimization, together with the documents submitted by the applicant in support of the 404 Permit, show that the project is in compliance with the Guidelines. As this analysis clearly demonstrates, the Ingles redevelopment is designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the site to the maximum extent practicable while maintaining a rational project design. 8 7.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN Upon completion and implementation of practical avoidance and minimization efforts, a total of 300 linear feet of new stream impacts associated with the redevelopment of the Ingles site are unavoidable. Unavoidable stream impacts will be mitigated for at a compensatory mitigation ratio of 1:1. The following conceptual mitigation plan is provided in support of this permit application. 7.1 NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) By letter dated October 1, 2013, EEP has indicated they are willing to accept payment for impacts associated with redevelopment at Ingles site. The acceptance letter is enclosed for review (Attachment C). The table below summarizes the basic mitigation requirements along with the proposed stream mitigation. 0 Total New Compensatory Basic Mitigation Impact Impact Mitigation Ratio (x: 1) Requirement 1 300 LF 1 300 LF Total New Impact 30OLF Total Mitigation Required 30OLF 0 8.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES EPA interim regulations providing guidance for specification of deposit on sites for dredge and fill material were published on September 17, 1993, in 40 C.F.R. 230 per Section 404(b)l. Sub -Parts A through I pertain to dredge and fill permits, and apply to project sites similar to this project. Sub -Part D presents a summary of compliance criteria for the 404(b)l guidelines. This section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a dredge and fill permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist. Alternatives reviewed, detailed in Section 6.0, were assessed for compliance with 404(b)1 guidelines. Additional EPA guidance is presented related to general regulatory criteria, wildlife value, and human health guidelines. The discharge of dredge and fill material is considered permittable under these guidelines if the discharge activity: does not contribute to violation of state water quality standards; does not violate toxic effluent standards; does not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as threatened and endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and subsequent amendments; does not cause degradation to any marine sanctuaries; does not contribute to significant degradation of "waters of the United States;" does not adversely affect human health as it pertains to water supply; does not adversely impact wildlife, the food chain, and special aquatic sites; does not contribute to the discharge of pollutants that may affect the food web; does not have negative effects on the productivity of the aquatic ecosystem, or their physical values; and does not have adverse impacts on recreation, aesthetic, or economic values. Additionally, the applicant is required to minimize potential adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem. 8.1 Factual Determination The Corps is required to determine both potential short-term and long -term effects of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and biological components of an aquatic environment. 8.2 Potential Imaacts on Phvsical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aauatic Ecosystem Sub -Part C of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines lists six physical and chemical characteristics that must be assessed during the permit review, and the effects of which must be determined to be minimal on the aquatic ecosystem. 8.2.1 Substrate Fill material in the form of culverts will be placed in a jurisdictional stream on site. Any discharge will consist of suitable fill material and will not include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material will also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be installed prior to and during construction to ensure that the bottom elevation of remaining streams and wetlands on the property will not change. 10 8.2.2 Suspended Particulate /Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion Control) During construction activities on the site, there may be a minimal increase in suspended particulates that may lead to increased turbidity downstream. However, the increase is anticipated to be minimal and temporary due to the installation and maintenance of proper sediment and erosion control measures during construction and shortly thereafter. 8.2.3 Water Quality The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not cause increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem. Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition to possible chemical contamination shall be minimized or reduced. All discharges of dredge and fill material will be controlled with a sediment and erosion control plan. It is anticipated that all of the fill material needed at the site will be taken from on -site areas. The fill material used on site will be clear and free of chemical contamination. Should additional fill material be required, suitable, off -site, clean fill material will be purchased and transported to the project. The applicant will be concurrently applying for a NC Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Certification. 8.2.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation The discharged dredge and fill material should not adversely modify current water circulation patterns by obstructing flow, changing direction or velocity of water, or changing velocity or flow of circulation. Culverts will be buried to a depth that is equal to 20% of their diameter; culverts that are larger than 48 inches will be buried to a depth of 12 inches (Figure 5), unless topographic constraints indicate culvert slopes greater than 5% or bedrock is present at the culvert location. Impacts associated with the redevelopment will not inhibit channel flow. 8.2.5 Normal Water Fluctuations The discharge of fill material associated with this project is not anticipated to have any significant effect on the downstream hydrologic regimes. 8.2.6 Salinity Because this project is located inland and away from tidally influenced waters and wetlands, no modification to the salinity of on -site or adjacent waters is expected. 8.3 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem Sub -Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern in which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of the ecosystem. These components are threaten and endangered species; fish, crustaceans, mollusks, other aquatic organisms in the food web; and wildlife. 8.3.1 Threatened or Endangered Species CEC has conducted a file review of records maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). The desktop literature review involved a review of the FWS list of protected species in Henderson County and the NHP Element Occurrence Data on which NHP identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for a specific locale. The FWS lists 8 species as occurring in Henderson County. The NHP database identifies 42 element occurrences (EO) within a 2 -mile radius of the project site; 10 EOs, comprised of 5 species, hold Federal status and are subject to Section 7 consultation. The species included in the EOs are listed below. Common Name Scientific Name Status white frin eless orchid Platanthera inte rilabia candidate mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia 'onesii endangered bunched arrowhead Sa ittaria asciculata endangered small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides threatened swamp pink Helonias bullata threatened Suitable habitat for the species listed was not observed at the project site. It is the opinion of CEC that federally protected species are not likely to be present within the project boundary. As such, redevelopment of the proposed Ingles project site is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. The FWS will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on threatened and endangered species. 8.3.2 Fishes, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the Food Web Discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web by impacting animals, such as invertebrates, that make up the basis of a food chain. The release of contaminants or an increase in turbidity has the potential to negatively affect certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may also potentially increase the levels of exotic species. Culverts on site will be partially buried in the streambed to allow natural stream substrate to accumulate in the bottom of the culvert and to allow uninhibited aquatic life passage. 12 Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the US and wetlands on the project site is expected to be minimal. 8.3.3 Other Wildlife The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species. The project as proposed will not affect breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, or food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species. 8.4 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites Sub -Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges, wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle -pool complexes. 8.4.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges by impacting water quality, decreasing wildlife habitat, increasing human access, and creating the need for frequent maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment of undesirable plant and animal species, which can change the balance of habitat type. There are no designated sanctuaries of refuges located within the project vicinity; therefore, impacts to sanctuaries or refuges will not occur as a result of redevelopment at the proposed project site. 8.4.2 Wetlands The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely affect wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation. Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat, flood storage, and groundwater recharge. No wetlands will be impacted as a result of redevelopment at the proposed project site. 8.4.3 Mud Flats Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect mud flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine systems. There are no mud flat communities within the project boundary; therefore, loss of these ecosystems will not occur as a result of redevelopment at the proposed project site. 13 8.4.4 Vegetated Shallows Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect vegetated shallows. Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that contain rooted aquatic vegetation. This type of habitat generally exists within estuarine and marine environments; and some freshwater lakes and rivers. No vegetated shallow habitats exist within the project boundary; therefore, no impacts to this ecosystem will occur as a result of redevelopment at the proposed project site. 8.4.5 Coral Reefs Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect coral reefs. Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. Coral reefs do not exist within the project boundary; therefore, no impacts to this ecosystem will occur as a result of redevelopment at the proposed project site. 8.4.6 Riffle -Pool Complexes Discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle -pool complexes has the potential to negatively affect water quality and wildlife value. The stream on site is in a maintained ditch and does not contain riffle -pool complexes. No impact to riffle-pool complexes will occur as a result of the redevelopment at the proposed project site. 8.5 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics Sub -Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and commercial fisheries, water - related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines. 8.5.1 Municipal and Private Water Supplv The public water supply will not increase or decrease due to proposed activities at the proposed project site. Potable water will be supplied by the City of Hendersonville. 8.5.2 'Recreational and Commercial Fisheries Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect recreational and commercial fisheries. Streams on site are not a part of any recreational or commercial fishery. Activities taking place at the proposed project site will not adversely impact recreational or commercial fisheries. 8.5.3 Water - Related Recreation Activities taking place at the proposed project site will not increase or decrease waterborne recreation in the project boundary or vicinity. 14 8.5.4 Aesthetics Aesthetically, the proposed redevelopment will be no different from any other residential development in outlying areas. The project is not expected to diminish the aesthetic value of the area or cause disharmony from an aerial or neighboring view. 8.5.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves No parks, national or historical monuments, national beach shores, wilderness areas, research sites, or similar preserves will be effected by the proposed redevelopment at the Ingles site. 8.6 Summary Based on the EPA guidelines identified within 40 C.F.R. 230, and enumerated herein, a number of potential environmental impacts have been presented and subsequently addressed. The proposed permanent impact to 300 linear feet of the Johnson Drainage Ditch will not cause any off site adverse impacts. Mitigation offered through payment in to the EEP will compensate for any on -site impacts. 15 9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS When reviewing this application, the Corps is required to consider the project in terms of the public interest. In considering the public interest, the Corps must evaluate the probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may be expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments ". In balancing these interests, the Corps must consider the public and private need for the proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations, and the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project. The Corps also considers the following public interest factors: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic and cultural resources, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, and considerations of the property ownership. Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contrary to the public interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below. Furthermore, the Corps regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest. The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors through the planning process and believes that the proposed project is clearly not contrary to the public interest. 9.1 Conservation The applicant is not proposing preservation as a component of the project; however, those projects completed by the EEP in association with this project will be preserved in perpetuity. 9.2 Economics The project will provide an overall benefit to the local economy of Henderson County. During and upon completion of construction, the site will provide job opportunities associated with operation and maintenance of the store. The appropriate economic evaluations have been completed and the project as proposed is economically viable. 9.3 Aesthetics Aesthetically, the proposed redevelopment will be no different from any other residential development in outlying areas. The project is not expected to diminish the aesthetic value of the area or cause disharmony from an aerial or neighboring view. 16 9.4 General Environmental Concerns Other than stream impacts, proposed development activities at the redevelopment site will have no significant identifiable impacts upon other environmental components. 9.5 Wetlands The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely affect wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation. Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat, flood storage, and groundwater recharge. No wetlands will be impacted as a result of redevelopment at the proposed project site. 9.6 Historic Properties A desktop review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and available on SHPO's HPOWEB GIS Service indicates 11 historic properties or historic districts within 1 mile of the Ingles project site. The closest property is known as the Brookland and is approximately 0.38 from the proposed project site. The properties and/or districts identified are listed below. Site Name Site ID Brookland HN0041 Mary Mills Coxe House HN0054 West Side Historic District HN0250 Lenox Park Historic District HN0170 Main Street Historic District HN0489 Reece House HN0055 King-Waldrop House HN0049 Aloah Hotel HN0045 Clarke- Hobbs - Davidson House HN0048 Grey Hosiery Mill HN0135 The Cedars HN0046 It is the opinion of CEC, that the proposed activity is not likely to threaten the integrity of this site. The SHPO will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on cultural resources. 9.7 Fish and Wildlife Values Riparian and wetland areas provide habitat for many types of wildlife because of their diverse and productive plant communities, complex structure, and close proximity to surface water. Wildlife may be permanent residents of riparian and wetland areas or occasional visitor that use the areas for food, water, or temporary shelter. 17 Food availability varies with the type of vegetation in riparian and wetland areas, but includes fruit, seed, foliage, twigs, buds, insects, and other invertebrates. Trees and shrub produce a variety of foods that are eaten by many animals and may be especially important sources of nutrition during the winter months. Grasses and herbaceous vegetation provide seeds and forage both within riparian and wetland areas and along the forest border. The stream environment provides moving water for many animals to drink, feed, swim, and reproduce. Water is also available on moist vegetation and in wetlands that are often associated with riparian areas. These areas, both permanent and temporary, are especially important for amphibians and macro- invertebrates. Riparian and wetland areas provide a sheltered environment for many species of animals to feed, rest, and reproduce. Animals use these areas to seek shelter from extreme weather and to escape predators and human activity. Riparian and wetland areas may also provide important travel corridors for some species, and are frequently used as stop -over points for migratory birds. With the exception of a few landscaping trees, the riparian area at the proposed project site has been cleared. 9.8 Flood Hazards It is likely that some tributaries on the property will flood occasionally due to natural fluctuations in weather patterns that increase precipitation. The activities taking place within the proposed project boundary are not expected to increase or decrease the natural rate of flooding at the site or downstream. The State of North Carolina has "no objection to the conclusion of no- increase in base flood elevation or floodway elevation" (Attachment D). 9.9 Floodplain Values Designated floodplains do existing along the Johnson Drainage Ditch within the project boundary (FEMA Map Panels 9568J, effective October 2, 2008). Designated floodplains will be impacted by activities within the proposed project boundary; however, the State of North Carolina has "no objection to the conclusion of no- increase in base flood elevation or floodway elevation" (Attachment D). A map showing the floodway and 100 -year floodplain boundary is included for review (Figure 3). 9.10 Land Use The proposed project will be in compliance with local zoning regulations and ordinances. The project is consistent with surrounding land use and development. 18 9.11 Navigation Streams on site are tributaries to Mud Creek. Mud Creek is a tributary to the French Broad River, which is a navigable -in -fact water at the Wilson Bridge east of Brevard, North Carolina. Activities proposed at the redevelopment site are not likely to affect navigation. 9.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion The project should have minimal effects on erosion and runoff. An erosion control plan will be implemented as part of the construction plan for the project. During the construction process, best management practices (BMPs) will be followed. These BMPs will include the construction of swales, erosion and sediment control structures, turbidity barriers, and other measures that will prevent sediment transport off the project site and into adjacent waters. Activities proposed at redevelopment site are not likely to cause significant erosion or accretion. 9.13 Recreation Proposed activities will not increase or decrease waterborne recreation on site or in the project vicinity. 9.14 Water Supply and Conservation The public water supply will not increase or decrease due to proposed activities at the redevelopment site. 9.15 Water Ouality (Stormwater Management) No short term or long term adverse water quality impacts are anticipated. BMPs will be incorporated during construction. The applicant will be concurrently applying for a NC Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Certification. 9.16 Energy Needs Activities taking place at the redevelopment site, during construction and at full build out, are not expected to significantly increase energy demands beyond the capacity of the local facility. Energy will not be produced as a result of the proposed activities at the redevelopment site. 9.17 Safety The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible considerations for public safety. The proposed activities at the redevelopment site will not increase or decrease public safety. 9.18 Food and Fiber Production The proposed activities at the redevelopment site will not increase or decrease food and fiber production. IV 9.19 Mineral Needs The project fulfills no current mineral needs. No mining activities are proposed as part of the proposed activities at the redevelopment site. 9.20 Considerations of Property Ownership Ingles Markets, Inc. currently owns the property proposed for development and has the inherent right to develop the land in a reasonable and responsible manner, which includes adhering to all Federal, State, and local regulations. Ingles Markets, Inc. Attn: Mr. Randy Jameson 2913 US Highway 70 West Black Mountain, NC 28711 9.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public The project will positively address the needs providing additional commercial/retail goods Henderson County, North Carolina. 20 and welfare of the public by and services to citizens of 10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The proposed project site is located within the French Broad River Subbasin 04- 03 -02. Approximately 75 percent of this subbasin is forested and the total land mass includes approximately 806 square miles (516,000 acres). The project area is comprised of approximately 7 acres (0.01 square miles). All of the land mass included within the project site accounts for less than 0.001 percent of the land mass of the basin. These percentages alone, limit significant cumulative effects on the watershed. Past activities within the subbasin include logging; agricultural, commercial and residential development; and road building. Agricultural and residential development, and road building in the vicinity remains active; continued and future development of the watershed is independent of activities proposed at the project site. Impacts within the project boundary include the redevelopment of an existing Ingles store. Stream impacts are necessary for the construction at the site. Activities associated with the proposed project should not result in a significant impairment of the water resources on site or interfere with the productivity and water quality of the existing aquatic ecosystem. 11.0 SUMMARY The redevelopment of the proposed site includes installation of 300 linear feet of new culvert and replacement of 253 linear feet of existing culvert. Alternatives have been discussed and the project as proposed is the least damaging practical alternative which meets the project purpose. Potential impacts to the physical and chemical characteristics of the ecosystem, biological characteristic of the ecosystem, impacts on special aquatic sites, and potential effects on human use characteristics will be minimal. The project is not contrary to the public interest and will aid in the continued growth of Henderson County. 21 Ingles - Spartanburg Highway W p p i1D .. i Q l% ve� I!I ho�ton Pr V1 �e� yt ��,� p, ' ., u t� an p` X25 L p f6 • 8th Ave W ' CL = - fndersonville --- a 0 m to n Ave {veW 40 Aye E its j V Sth 4th A ¢ 0 N,grd Ave E i r Std pve W ;2nd • W 1! Ave E ) E Allan at tat Ava W 1 •' S 1i G a ^� fCller Cif W Alla0 Ify�p i s 4� -i l P 4 hu3a� J..-- R at 1j62 t • ��A t J7 Barker " Sr •fo H o Toms HOW f Otp 6� � He hts iz " sp � t+j V � ?vfs Sf t7 4 0 t N Property d Dr ��, W h - Boundary m La • e � h r o `T retow v •" - h � G HUhSr Y yoc N4 'ys '1722 �41� � $d��w N•ti• SR \��ti, Q• 1111 p a Vt , �0 dp 'p� SR ��8 , SR 1233 � �, SR 190& 54$01 yT Q r t',4w4% S °;4 R J2 �� ^ S. �� fib N rra Ave SR 1140 ra Est 9 Slip %oloy •4'�i tZ� Rd Legend Sit '011 %1 61 �s 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Property Boundary MOMM Feet Drawn by: RLN 01.18.12 '1164 1166 Henderson County, nearWater Site Vicinity North Carolina Figure 1 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Ingles - Spartanburg Highway Ingles - Spartanburg Highway Ingles - Spartanburg Highway 12 INCHES OF STREAMBED MATERIAL Culverts will be buried to a depth that is equal to 20% of their diameter; culverts that are larger than 48 inches will be buried to a depth of 12 inches, unless topographic constraints indicate culvert slopes greater than 5% or bedrock is present at the culvert location. Drawn by: RLN 11.11.13; CEC Project# 842 jlv v V" ■ PROPOSED V X 16` BOX CULVERT Henderson County, �'1 y`''b_ r Typical Cross Section _ J"Y-iYv� North Carolina -- Figure 5 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Attachment A Jurisdictional Determination Form APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: NC County/parish/borough: Henderson City: Hendersonville Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.3100150 N, Long. - 82.4650980 �. Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Johnson Drainage Ditch Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Mills River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper French Broad 06010105 Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas islare available upon request. Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: o Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required) Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required) 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r TNWs, including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs Relatively permanent waterS2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non - wetland waters: 860 linear feet: 10 width (ft) and/or 0.20 acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: stablished by OHWM� Elevation of established OHWM (if known): 2. Non - regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):; El Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: ' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (e.g., typically 3 months). 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HIM below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non- navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below. 1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: 'rick Lis Drainage area: I Pick Lis Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ❑ Tributary flows through ick Lis- j tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are P72VE-i—si, river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are rick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNW5: Tributary stream order, if known: 'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and West. ' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tnbutary b, which then flows into TNW. (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply): Tributary is: ❑ Natural ❑ Artificial (man - made). Explain: ❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: ick Lis Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete ❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck ❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover: ❑ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: fick Lis Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % (c) Ftow: Tributary provides for: ick Lis Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: ick Lis Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: kkkjj4 Characteristics: Subsurface flow: P41W. Explain findings: ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ❑ Bed and banks ❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): ❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ❑ the presence of litter and debris ❑ changes in the character of soil ❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation ❑ shelving ❑ the presence of wrack line ❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ❑ sediment sorting ❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ scour ❑ sediment deposition ❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events ❑ water staining ❑ abrupt change in plant community ❑ other (list): ❑ Discontinuous OHWM .7 Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): ❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum; ❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings; ❑ physical markingstcharacteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. ❑ tidal gauges ❑ other (list): (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: 6A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 'Ibid. (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): ❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/s awn areas Ex lain findin P P »• ❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW: Flow is: Pick Lis. Explain: Surface flow is: ick Lis Characteristics: Subsurface flow: ick Lis Explain findings: ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW: ❑ Directly abutting ❑ Not directly abutting ❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ❑ Ecological connection. Explain: ❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick Lis river miles from TNW. Project waters are ick Lis aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: ick Lis Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ick Lis floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: ick Lis Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? /N) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: 0 TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs, Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: Large watershed, distinct bed and banks, etc. Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: 860 linear feet 10 width (ft). Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 3. Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ® Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): ®Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. [� Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. ® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year - round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ® Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: 'See Footnote # 3. 'To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act JaristBcdon Following Rapanos. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify types) of waters: ❑ Wetlands: acres. F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. ❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: ❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional udgment (check all that apply): Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). Lakestponds: acres. Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). Lakestponds: acres. Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Corps navigable waters' study: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ❑ USGS NHD data ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Hendersonville 1:24,000. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: State/Local wetland inventory map(s): FEMA/FIRM maps: 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date): or ❑ Other (Name & Date): Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Applicabletsupporting case law: Applicable/supporting scientific literature: Other information (please specify): B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Attachment B Site Photographs Site Photographs Johnson's Drainage Ditch looking north towards box culvert under Spartanburg Hwy. Johnson's Drainage Ditch looking south towards back of property. Johnson's Drainage Ditch looking north towards existing culverts (northern-most existing culverts). Johnson's Drainage Ditch looking south towards existing culverts (southern -most existing culverts). Existing store and lot. Attachment C EEP Acceptance Letter PROGRAM October 1, 2013 Randy Jameson Ingles Markets PO Box 6676 Asheville, NC 28816 Project: Ingles Hendersonville Expiration of Acceptance: April I, 2014 County: Henderson The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity including, SL 2009 -337: An Act to Promote the Use of Compensatory Mitigation Banks as amended by S.L. 2011 -343. This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In- Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net. Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to NCEEP for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below. Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010. Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at (919) 707 -8915. Sincerely, Jam . B Stanfill Asset Management Supervisor cc: Karen Higgins, NCDWR Wetlands/401 Unit USACE - Asheville Kevin Barnett, NCDWR- Asheville Rebekah Newton, agent File X"t70r1$!5... E ... Pro" our .fta& RMMR- North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -707 -8976 / www.nceep.net River CU Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I Buffer If Basin Location (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh I French 06010105 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broad Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010. Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at (919) 707 -8915. Sincerely, Jam . B Stanfill Asset Management Supervisor cc: Karen Higgins, NCDWR Wetlands/401 Unit USACE - Asheville Kevin Barnett, NCDWR- Asheville Rebekah Newton, agent File X"t70r1$!5... E ... Pro" our .fta& RMMR- North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -707 -8976 / www.nceep.net Attachment D No -Rise Concurrence Letter DwP4S North Carolina Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Pat McCrory, Governor Frank L. Perry, Secretary August 21, 2013 Susan G. Frady, CFM, CZO Zoning Administrator City of Hendersonville 100 N. King Street Hendersonville, NC 28792 Michael A. Sprayberry, Director Subject: No -Rise Certification for Proposed Drainage Improvements at 625 Spartanburg Hwy. Dear Ms Frady: The North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management Geospatial and Technology Management Office (GTMO) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) staff has reviewed the Engineering No -Rise Study for the Proposed Drainage Improvements at 625 Spartanburg Highway in Hendersonville, prepared by New River Engineering, PLLC, Robert J. Billings, PE. The Certification is dated July 26, 2013. It was received in this office on August 15, 2013. Based on the information provided, the GTMO NFIP review indicates the report meets the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) guidance for a no -rise certification. The GTMO NFIP finds no objection to the conclusion of no- increase in base flood elevation or floodway elevation as contained in the report. There were several inconsistencies in the hydraulic model. Our assessment is that these do not alter the conclusion of the report. However, they do preclude use of the hydraulic analysis for any other purpose unless corrections are made to the models. These include: 1. Floodway encroachment stations were not set at the new cross - sections 49121, 49386, and 49448. This error does not affect the floodway water surface elevation at the project site. 2. Floodway encroachment stations were modified from the Effective model to the Existing and Proposed models. The encroachment stations should have been set using Encroachment Method 1 to match the effective data, and remained consistent throughout the various models. 3. Reach lengths did not match between the Effective model and the Existing and Proposed models. The reach lengths were approximately 100' shorter in the Existing and Proposed models. The difference was small enough that it did not affect the conclusion of the No- Rise study. MAILING ADDRESS: 4218 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 -4218 www.nedps.gov www.ncfloodmaps.com M Equal OppoftnllyEmpbW OFFICE LOCATION: 4105 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone: (919) 715 -5711 Fax: (919)715 -0408 August 21, 2013 City of Hendersonville Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions or concerns with the items herein, please feel free to contact Dan Brubaker at (919) 825 -2300, by email at dan.brubakerna.ncdps.gov or at the address shown on the footer of this document. Sincerely, JW:AIshe, P.E., CFM Assistant Director Geospatial and Technology Management Office cc: John Gerber, NFIP State Coordinator Dan Brubaker, NFIP Engineer New River Engineering, PLLC Attention: Robert Billings, PE, PH, CFM 2347 Old NC 27 Mt. Holly, NC 28120