20211406 Ver 1_USACE PN Response to Comments_COMPLETE_20220202

Kimley>»Horn
February 2, 2022
Ms. Krysta Stygar
Wilmington District, Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
RE: USACE and Agency Response to Public Notice Comments
USACE SAW-2021-00535 (DWR #2021-1406)
NC Development Acquisition, LLC — Troutman Logistics Center
Iredell County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Stygar,
On behalf of our client, North Carolina Development Acquisition, LLC, Kimley-Horn (KH) is submitting the
following responses to the Public Notice comments for the above -referenced project per the US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) Public Notice Comments issued on January 11, 2022.
Below is an outline of the USACE comments with a brief narrative addressing each item. The USACE
comments with the applicant's response and explanation are as follows:
With respect to the project purpose, its analysis is a critical first step in the Corps permitting process.
The Corps is responsible in all cases for independently defining the project purposes from both the
applicant's and the public's perspective. Initially, the Corps evaluates a project's "basic purpose" to
assess whether the project is water -dependent. Once the Corps has determined the water
dependency of the project, it no longer considers the basic project purpose, but analyses
practicable alternatives in the light of the "overall project purpose". The overall project purpose must
be specific enough to define the applicant's need, but not so restrictive as to preclude an analysis
of all reasonable alternatives. The project purpose stated in your application is, "to construct a multi -
building industrial logistics park within the 1-77 corridor of the Charlotte MSA for connection to 1-85,
1-40, and CLT airport, providing eCommerce and traditional brick and mortar support warehousing
and supply -chain distribution space to optimize the efficiency of their distribution network in the
region, meeting current and future demands." The basic purpose being, "to provide warehousing
and supply chain distribution space to service Charlotte and Southeastern US and consumers
within those areas. "In considering the overall project purpose, we have determined that this project
purpose is too specific. Therefore, we have determined the overall project purpose of this project
is "to construct a large scale, master -planned industrial logistics complex to provide warehousing
and supply -chain distribution space to meet current and future demands within the southeastern
United States."
Response: The applicant takes no exception to this change to the purpose and need
statement.
2. The applicant determined that Iredell County and more specifically Troutman was the most
appropriate project location based on the following criteria: 1) Location/proximity to interstate
roadway system; 2) proximity to airport/international airport, 3) availability of qualified workforce,
and 4) proximity to large urban/metropolitan city. The applicant did not state which other areas,
counties, and/or cities were considered for the proposed development. Therefore, please provide
the other locations considered along with the reasons/justifications as to why those areas were not
chosen. Within this response, please provide why this particular section of 1-77 was the preferred
location for this center.

Kimley»>Horn
Response: Due to market demand, the applicant continues to search for available large -
tract properties in surrounding cities and counties, including those within the 1-77, 1-85,
and 1-485 corridors in Mecklenburg, Gaston, Iredell, York, and Cabarrus Counties. Any
identified large -tract sites which could facilitate the size and scope of this development are
highly sought after in the Charlotte market. At present, there are over 60 development
companies similar to North Carolina Development Acquisition, LLC that are actively seeking
similar tracts. If/when large -tract sites become available, the applicant would seek to
purchase and construct industrial/logistical parks similar to this development on said
properties.
In addition to the Charlotte MSA, the applicant currently meets supply -chain distribution
needs in nearly every major logistical market center throughout the southeastern US
including but not limited to Charleston, SC; Greenville, SC; Atlanta, GA; Savannah, GA;
Tampa, FL; Orlando, FL; West Palm Beach, FL; and Huntsville, AL.
As of January 2022, a market analysis performed by Colliers International, a Charlotte -
based industrial brokerage firm, for the current Charlotte industrial market is as follows:
• Total Demand (Requirements in the Market): 22,827,544 SF
• 40% of the Total Demand are requirements seeking a 1 MM SF or larger single -
tenant building
• Total Existing Available or Under Construction: 11,867,737 SF
• Number of 1 MM SF or larger buildings existing or under construction: 1
Tenant demand in the Charlotte market is at an all-time high. Third -party logistics, E-
commerce, traditional retail, wholesale distribution companies, and manufacturing to a
lesser extent, are driving the market demand which is at a significant deficit as indicated
above.
3. The applicant analyzed six specific siting criteria to determine if the off -site alternatives would be a
practicable alternative. One of the six criteria was Land Use/ Zoning which looked at
parcel(s)/tract(s) of land currently zoned for the intended use or that could be reasonably re -zoned
to accommodate the proposed project. Off -site alternative 1-3 states, "the site not currently zoned
for the proposed use; however, re -zoning of the property is assumed to be feasible." What
additional work, costs, extended timeline would be needed to re -zone parcels listing in off -site
alternative 1-3 to commercial use? Were Land Use/ Zoning criteria petitioned in the other
alternatives or just the preferred, please explain.
a. In addition, the preferred alternative is "not currently zoned for the proposed use, however
rezoning the property has been petitioned and according to the Town of Troutman, the rezoning
petition is anticipated to be accepted." What is the current designation of the preferred alternative?
Response: The preferred alternative is now properly zoned Industrial and annexed into
the Town of Troutman.
Rezoning of alternate sites would entail a timeline of approximately 6 months to potentially
obtain the required documents, file applications, and hold the required public hearings at
a cost of up to $250,000+ per site based on recent experience.
4. The applicant analyzed six specific siting criteria to determine if off -site alternatives would be a
practicable alternative. One of the six criteria was Access which specifically looked at three different
components. The description of this criteria stated, "the site must provide suitable access to a major
interstate. Suitable access to a major interstate would be defined as direct access to the site from
a paved road suitable to support truck traffic associated with the proposed facility. Second, the site

Kimley»>Horn
must be located adjacent to within two miles of an interstate exchange. Third, the site must allow
for truck access that avoids at -grade rail crossings and/or minimizes at -grade rail crossing
relocation. "
a. What is the significance of a 2-mile radius and why was the radius not expanded to three, five,
or ten miles? Please provide additional details/justification as to why only a 2-mile radius.
b. What is the significance of access to a major interstate? Please define "major interstate" and
additional justification why a further location would not be acceptable?
Response: In general, warehouse distribution center projects utilize a large number of
semi -trucks (WB-67's), typically 500-1,000 or more per day, that are best suited for
interstate travel. The 2-mile radius is significant due to the trucking costs associated with
being more than 2-miles from a major interstate, e.g. Interstate Highway System or
freeway, part of a network of controlled -access highways that link major cities in the 48
contiguous states. The analytics show that on city streets it costs $3/mile for distances 2-
10 miles and $4.25/mile for distances 11-20 miles from the interstate. For highway travel
to the interstate, the additional trucking cost above 2 miles is $2.25/mile. These increased
costs would create a financial hardship on prospective tenants and decrease the number
of interested parties in a given development.
In addition, all prospective tenants seek to limit the intermingling of trucks and passenger
cars to the extent practical and seek sites close to interstates to promote safer driving
conditions for truck and commuter traffic. Moreover, additional distance from interstate
results in wasted fuel, increased CO2 emissions, increased truck driver costs, including
layover costs, and longer employee commutes. Longer employee commutes increase
operational costs which handicap remote sites compared to those in proximity to
interstates. Prospective tenants generally do not entertain multi -mile one-way trips due to
these added costs. Additionally, prospective tenants often reject sites that require more
than two turns from an interstate. For those reasons, an increased distance from major
interstates would make the project inviable.
Lastly, local streets are not well suited for the number of trucks nor the typical 80,000-
pound weight. In many cases, aging infrastructure is not rated fortoday's increased weight
limits, forcing drivers to utilize alternative routes, often resulting in increased driving
distances or unscheduled layovers. From a political standpoint, rural sites that are greater
than 2-miles from an interstate begin to encroach on residential areas. Rezonings become
more difficult as the number of neighbor objections begins to sway elected officials'
opinions.
5. The preferred alternative shows several configurations for the on -site alternatives.
a. Please provide additional information as to why the building space is necessitated to be
1, 700, 000 SF? Is there an option to potentially build up vertically, potentially replacing two buildings
with one, that has two stories? Please justify and provide additional information. Why would a
smaller space not be as beneficial?
b. For configuration 2, as stated, "during design, the agreement with the build -to -suit warehouse
tenant was terminated, resulting in a speculative redesign of the site. This configuration includes
one 1, 501,200 SF building, 6 storm water detention basins, truck access and parking, and employee
parking. " Additional details about the future use of the designed warehouse are requested. Is there
a tenant? Is the tenant only speculative at this point? If the building size would work with 1.5 million
feet, why is the desired/preferred alternative 1.7 million SF?
Response: Please refer to the included building plans for a visual depiction of what is
proposed for construction. The operational requirements of distribution centers require

Kimley»>Horn
direct access to both sides of the building with semi -trucks (WB-67's). Multi -level loading
docks would not be a viable alternative due to operational requirements. The next level
up would be approximately 40' above grade which isn't operational or financially feasible.
Tenant demand is what is driving the building sizes. 5 years ago, a 200,000 SF building
was a common product. Due to changes in shopping patterns that have been exacerbated
by the pandemic, building sizes have steadily increased over the last 5 years in order to
meet the demand, while the number of developable large -tract sites necessary to facilitate
larger building sizes continues to decrease.
While the previous build -to -suit tenant's proposed building was slightly smaller than the
current 1.7M SF proposed plan, the overall development footprint was much larger. The
previous plan required over 1,000 trailer parking spaces and 600 employee parking
spaces. For comparison, the current 2-building plan proposes 474 trailer parking spaces
and 484 employee parking spaces. As a result, the previous plan yielded slightly more
aquatic resource impacts than the currently proposed 2-building plan.
We understand the general concerns with speculative development; however, the
applicant is currently in discussions with four prospective tenants interested in leasing the
facilities. A tenant will most likely be known within the first few months of construction to
allow for proper internal building customization. In addition, 27.6M SF of speculative
warehouse distribution space has been leased over the past 10 years within the Charlotte
market. 100% of those facilities were under lease upon receiving a certificate of
occupancy.
For reference, here is a summary of industrial warehouse facilities and their uses
Cross -Dock
Cross -docking is unloading inbound freight from one truck, holding it in the warehouse
building for a very short period of time, and loading it onto another truck for outbound
shipping. Often there is one side that is designated for Receiving and one side for
Shipping. Goods are unloaded on the Receiving side and routed "across" the warehouse
to awaiting trucks on the Shipping side. The buildings are typically much larger than a
rear load building and are usually occupied by one tenant, sometimes two. The volume
of material handled by these tenants requires a large number of trucks/loading docks,
large warehouse space for temporary storage, and a large number of trailer parking
spaces. The width of these buildings is limited by fire code to about 620' before special
designs are required. Building floors are raised 48" above the surrounding grade to allow
for unloading semi -trucks. The internal ceilings are typically 32' high or higher. The
tenants of these buildings are large Fortune 500 companies and these buildings form the
backbone of their supply chain supplying goods to each brick and mortar store. Every
retailer and grocery store utilizes this type of facility. Due to the volume of inbound and
outbound trucks, these are located adjacent to major arterial road networks.
Rear -Load
Rear load buildings are essentially half of a cross -dock and max out at approximately 300'
deep and are usually smaller than 300,000 SF. These are often occupied by multiple
smaller users that have a much smaller volume of inbound/outbound goods. Target
tenants occupy 5,000 SF to 50,000 SF each and up to 10 loading docks. These tenants

Kimley»>Horn
are smaller companies and may only serve a few local locations. These buildings are
often located in industrial parks near the industrial/manufacturing centers of a jurisdiction.
Front -Load
Front -load buildings are almost the same as rear -load buildings only with parking located
on the ends of the facilities. These buildings often are more manufacturing -based.
6. Off -site alternative 1 states, "in summary, off -site alternative 1 does not meet all the site screening
criteria and is therefore not a practicable alternative. " In the general screening criteria provided,
"the property can be reasonably obtained, and the project site meets the basic and overall project
purpose, however, due to the presence of overhead power lines, the 700,000 SF building cannot
be constructed. This alternative is not capable of being constructed when considering costs and
logistics." This is a broad/vague statement that needs additional information to support that
assumption. Therefore, please provide additional details about the added costs and logistical
support preventing this off -site alternative from not being a viable option.
Response: The overhead powerlines in question are major transmission towers. Due to
the size of the structures and the disruption to the electrical grid, they cannot be feasibly
relocated. The estimated relocation cost for a double circuit transmission tower is
approximately $3M per tower plus changes to two additional towers due to the new angles
for a total of approximately $10M. This work requires approximately two years to design,
build the relocated towers, prepare temporary rerouting to keep customers powered,
reroute the main power line, and then demolish the old towers.
7. Off -site alternative 2 states, "This site is not currently zoned for the proposed land use, rezoning of
the site is assumed unfeasible due to the current residential zoning designation, proximity to the
Barium Springs Home for Children, and the proximity to residential developments to the North and
South." Please provide more detail as to why rezoning is not feasible. Please provide additional
support about the added costs and logistical support preventing this site from being a viable option.
Response: Rezoning for this alternate is not feasible due to the proximity to major
residential areas. Neither the applicant nor future tenants are willing to locate next to the
area with lots of pedestrian traffic and/or interaction with residences. In this particular
case, the neighbor is an orphanage facility. Additionally, following the original submittal
of the alternatives analysis, we understand that this site is now under consideration by a
national home builder seeking to develop a residential neighborhood.
8. Off -site alternative 3 states, "The site is not for sale and cannot be purchased. " Further information
is requested why an alternative that could not be purchased was considered. (How is this a
reasonable alternative if it is not an option?) Availability was stated to be a consideration when
determining off -site alternatives, "availability of large tracts of land".
Response: "Availability" in this instance simply refers to the existence of a property that
initially appears to have sufficient area to be a viable site. There is a small number of
large sites in the vicinity of the preferred alternative. Better wording for off -site alternative
3 is that the site is "not currently listed for sale but is assumed to be available for purchase
upon receipt of an acceptable offer".

Kimley»>Horn
9. The introduction states, "associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater management
facilities are also proposed." This is a broad statement and additional details describing the
infrastructure are needed. Are there any additional or anticipated impacts to waters of the United
States associated with this proposed work? Were these impacts evaluated for both the preferred
alternative and other alternatives?
Response: The items referenced above are shown on the provided plans and associated
impacts are already included within the application. No additional impacts are proposed.
10. The information requested above is essential to the expeditious processing of the application;
please submit one consolidated response to all comments by February 24, 2022. This information
is required pursuant to 33 CFR 325, Appendix 8, and 40 CFR 1506.5 If you do not submit this
information within the given timeframe, the application will be administratively withdrawn.
Withdrawal of the application does not preclude you from reopening the application at a later time,
provided you submit the required information.
Response: Understood.
Greg Cain (Neighbor)
11. I live at 171 Levo Drive, Troutman, and this 1.7 million SF distribution center project is planned on
land that connects to my property. The environmental concern I have is the water runoff damage
from the proposed property site and my property. (see attached photos) During medium to heavy
rainfalls, there is a stream of water collected from the proposed distribution center site that flows
through my property. This stream of water already causes a great deal of erosion damage along
with significant trash pollution. My family and I pick up bags of trash yearly from the runoff that is
dumped off our property. This runoff goes through my property and ends up in I-L Creek. I reviewed
the maps and information in the public notice I do not see this intermittent stream listed on the
maps. In figure 6 of the notice "existing conditions map" there is a stream labeled S1. This would
be the nearest stream but is not what runs through my property. I am concerned that with the
construction and building of distribution centers that runoff into this stream causing significant
erosion damage and dumping trash/pollution into my property and the I-L stream will only intensify.
I want to make sure that this concern is addressed and resolved during the planning/application
period. I am requesting a conversation with representatives from the Corps of Engineers, North
Carolina Acquisitions, LLC, and the Town of Troutman. I am also requesting a written plan on my
concerns listed above that will be addressed by the developer. Ideally, representatives would visit
my property so we can walk the property line and discuss the area I have described.
Response: The applicant invited Mr. Cain to a virtual meeting on December 7, 2021, to
discuss the project in detail and address his concerns. During this meeting, it was
explained that the development of the site would eliminate the illegal trash dumping
upgradient from his residence that was making its way to his property during rain events.
The applicant also showed that the non -jurisdictional stormwater drainage feature on his
property would not receive a significant discharge from the proposed development and
erosion damage should decrease. The applicant also has walked the property line with
the residents to listen to and help address concerns.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
12. We recommend seeking alternatives in other counties or towns, as well as brownfield sites.
Response: Please see the response to Comment #2 above.

Kimley»>Horn
13. For the employee parking, we recommend parking structures or another alternative
Response: Structured parking is not financially or operationally viable for this type of use.
At an average cost of $10,000 per parking space, structured parking would add a minimum
of a $5M premium to the construction cost. Additionally, prospective tenants do not want
to handicap their ability to attract employees due to the nuisance of navigating a parking
deck. The limited amount of area devoted to car parking would not generate substantial
decreases to environmental resources.
14. The applicant should use non-invasive native species and Low Impact Development in
landscaping. Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment
hydrologic regime but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. LID Techniques
include permeable pavement and bioretention areas that can collect stormwater from driveways
and parking areas. Additional alternatives include narrower roads, swales versus curbs/gutters,
and permeable surfaces such as turf stone, brick, and cobblestone. Compared to conventional
developments, implementing appropriate LID techniques can be more cost-effective, increase
property values, provide space -saving advantages, reduce runoff, and protect water quality.
Response: The applicant will utilize native species in the proposed landscaping as
irrigation is intended to be limited. Sand filters are proposed for stormwater quality
treatment prior to discharge.
15. Maintain a minimum 100-foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer along perennial streams and a
minimum 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed, forested
buffers along these areas will minimize the impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources,
water quality, and aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the project area.
Response: The Town of Troutman Unified Development Ordinance requires a 50-ft
undisturbed buffer along perennial streams (solid -blue line) illustrated on the most recent
version of the USGS topographic map. The applicant will maintain the 50-ft buffers
generating a 100' total width forested buffer on all remaining streams not proposed to be
impacted by the development.
16. Due to the decline in populations of tree -roosting bat species, avoid tree clearing activities during
the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15- August 15)
Response: To the extent practicable, tree clearing activities will be limited to proposed
development areas only. The applicant intends to leave as many trees as practical to limit
habitat disruption and buffer the site from neighbors.
17. We recommend not clearing the entire site, but rather maintaining the maximum amount of native
vegetation as possible. We suggest having the site logged or repurposing the wood instead of
burning the cleared trees.
Response: The applicant intends to leave as many trees as practical to limit habitat
disruption and buffer the site from neighbors.

Kimley»>Horn
18. Disturbed areas should be re -seeded with native seed mixtures and plants. Avoid fescue -based
mixtures or lespedeza because they are invasive and provide little benefit to wildlife. Native, annual
small grains appropriate for the season are preferred and recommended. For areas adjacent to
buildings, a native shrub/grass option may also be beneficial. Avoid using invasive, non-native
plants in seed mixtures or landscaping plants, such as Bermuda grass, lespedeza, and nandina.
Response: Temporary and permanent native seed mixtures will be incorporated into the
stabilization plan to help prevent erosion and stabilize slopes. Turfgrass will be limited
within the development.
19. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land -disturbing activity.
The use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls, and/or other products should have loose -weave netting that
is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines.
Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it impeded
the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental
effects on aquatic resources including the destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and
clogging of gills.
Response: Sediment and erosion control measures as required, reviewed, and approved
by Iredell County will be implemented prior to land disturbance.
20. We recommend considering additional measures to address secondary and cumulative impacts of
development on water and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat before degradation of streams
occurs. Measures to address the issues of development can be found in NCWRC's Guidance
Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and
Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality.
Response: The Town of Troutman Unified Development Ordinance requires a 50-ft
undisturbed buffer along perennial streams (solid -blue line) illustrated on the most recent
version of the USGS topographic map. The applicant will maintain the 50-ft buffers
generating a 100' total width forested buffer on all remaining streams not proposed to be
impacted by the development. Stream crossings will be designed to allow passage of
aquatic life, as many existing trees as practical will be preserved, and stormwater will be
treated and discharge velocities will be attenuated by stormwater control measures. Direct
discharge of stormwater into streams will not occur.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
21. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H.0506(b) "a 401 Water Quality Certification may only be issued upon
determining that the proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards which include
designated uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria, and the state's antidegradation policy as
defined in rules of 15A NCACO2B.0200... In assessing whether the proposed activity will comply
with water quality standards, the Division shall evaluate if the proposed activity: (1) has avoided
and minimized impacts to surface waters and wetlands.. " As this project is speculative with a stated
purpose as to "provide warehousing and supply -chain distribution space to service the Charlotte
MSA", please provide a detailed justification for the sizes of the proposed buildings and the specific
need for the amount of parking proposed. It appears that the site could be re -designed to further
avoid and minimize stream and/or wetland impacts and still meet the stated purpose.
Response: Due to recent changes in consumer spending habits, population growth and
supply chain constraints, the Charlotte regional industrial real estate market is
experiencing tremendous growth. To accommodate for these changes, several factors
are taking place within the region. The average size of industrial buildings has tripled

Kimley»>Horn
since 2019, which has pushed development outside of the core industrial market and into
the outlying surrounding counties due to additional land being needed for the larger
facilities. However, these facilities still need to be located within proximity to the growing
population areas and within 1-2 miles from a major interstate.
Furthermore, there are over 22.5M square feet of tenant demand within the Charlotte
market representing over 50 companies. 18% of this demand represents tenants seeking
facilities of 1 M SF and greater. As of Q4 2021, there are only five buildings, within the
region, planned for 1 M SF or greater. As of the date of this submittal, there are 11 current
requests in the Charlotte area market for buildings of 1 M SF or greater.
Please see the attached modified site plan for reference. While it is possible to build a
warehouse on this property with fewer stream impacts, the smaller buildings do not fulfill
the highest and best use of the property. Due to its proximity to 1-77, this site needs to be
utilized for distribution or 1 M+ SF users. The number of available sites for buildings of this
size is rare in this market and demand currently exceeds supply. Due to the absence of
wetlands on this property, this site lends itself even more to larger products while
minimizing environmental impacts.
From a financial standpoint, the larger buildings are necessary to make the site financially
viable due to a large amount of wall required to minimize stream impact, the volume of
earthwork, and the cost of offsite improvements.
22. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H.0506(b) "a 401 Water Quality Certification may only be issued upon
determining that the proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards which includes
designated uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria, and the state's antidegradation policy, as
defined in rules of 15A NCACA 02B.0200... In assessing whether the proposed activity will comply
with water quality standards, the Division shall evaluate if the proposed activity: (2) would cause or
contribute to a violation of water quality standards; (3) would result in secondary or cumulative
impacts that cause or contribute to, or will cause or contribute to, a violation of water quality
standards; 'Based on the information provided in the application the Division has
the following concerns:
a. Along the eastern boundary of the project site a small segment of stream 2 and stream 6 will be
indirectly affected by becoming disconnected, and essentially isolated, from all other natural
features. This small, disconnected portion of Stream2 and Stream 6 are unlikely to continue to
provide the same hydrologic and biological function and therefore should be counted as indirect
"loss of water". Please revise the application, plan sheets, and impact tables accordingly.
b. All surface flow from the project is proposed to be routed through multiple stormwater and wet
detention basins. In order to review possible secondary impacts to downstream hydrology, please
provide plans that clearly show the outlet location from each stormwater control measure. Please
note that the rerouting of any draining area and surface flow has the potential to remove existing
hydrology from features adjacent to this project and therefore remove existing uses of the stream
channels or wetlands. Based on the location of the proposed stormwater basins, it appears that the
lower portion of stream 3 and stream 1 will have significantly reduced hydrology.
Response:
a.) Please find the attached revised application, plan sheets, and impact tables indicating
an indirect "loss of water" for Streams 2 & 6.

Kimley»>Horn
b.) To continue contributing hydrology to the lower portion of Stream 3, the applicant will
direct 2-acres of greenspace runoff from the northwestern portion of the site to the
beginning of Stream 3.
The southern portion of Stream 1 will continue to receive flow from 4-acres west of the
stream and 30-acres from the parcel directly south of the proposed development.
The Stormwater Management Plan is currently in design and will be submitted to NCDWR
upon completion. The design will include detailed plans demonstrating the outlet locations
at each stormwater control measure. We are currently targeting a May 2022 submittal
date.
23. Please submit a complete Stormwater Management Plan for the project which shall include all
appropriate supplemental forms, O & M agreements, calculations, engineering drawings, etc., that
complies with the requirements of the State Stormwater Program. The Stormwater Design Manual
and applicable forms may be found on DEMLR's website at
https.//deq. nc. gov/about/divisions/energymineral-land-resources/energy-mineral-land-
permitguidance/stormwater-bmp-manual. In addition, please also submit the application form
SWU- 10 1 (attached). However, the $505 application fee and last two signature pages of this form
may be omitted. {15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(2) and (3)) Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e),
the applicant shall furnish all of the above -requested information for the proper consideration of the
application. Please respond in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter by sending
one(1) copy of all the above requested information to the 401 & Buffer permitting branch, 1617 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 OR by submitting all of the above -requested information
through this link: https.//edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form
Response: The Stormwater Management Plan is currently in design and will be submitted
to NCDWR upon completion. We are currently targeting a May 2022 submittal date.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
24. Based on the information provided, the project would occur at a location where any incidental take
that may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule for this species. (I.e.
Northern Long-eared Bat)
Suitable habitat occurs onsite for the federally threatened dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
Naniflora). We acknowledge that targeted botanical surveys conducted during the appropriate
survey window did not detect evidence for this species at that time. Your correspondence did not
describe the project in enough detail to discern the action area and effects of the action (50 CFR
402.02) Generally, proposed impacts to suitable habitats for listed plant species, but negative
survey results collected during the appropriate survey window, warrant our concurrence with a "may
affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination from the appropriate federal action agency.
In accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal agency or its designated
representative to review its activities or programs and to identify any such activities or programs
that may affect endangered or threatened species and their habitats. If it is determined that the
proposed activity may adversely affect any species federally listed as endangered or
threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated.
Response: A revised response was obtained by USFWS on September 30, 2021, with
the following revised statement:
Based on the information provided, suitable habitat occurs onsite for the federally
threatened dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) and endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). We acknowledge that targeted botanical surveys
conducted during the appropriate survey windows did not detect evidence for these

Kimley»>Horn
species at that time. Since the proposed project would impact suitable habitat for these
species, but no evidence for these plants was detected using appropriate methods, we
would concur with a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination from the action
agency for these species.
The revised USFWS response is attached.
25. Although not required, we encourage the applicant to avoid any associated tree clearing activities
during this animal's maternity roosting season from May 15- AUG 15.
Response: To the extent practicable, tree clearing activities will be limited to proposed
development areas only. The applicant intends to leave as many trees as practical to limit
habitat disruption and buffer the site from neighbors.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
26. We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
Response: SHPO has determined that the project will not affect historic resources.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Attachments
Cc: Dominic Reinicker, NC Development Acquisition, LLC
Matt Prince, NC Development Acquisition, LLC
Austin Watts, Kimley-Horn

APPENDIX C
Permit Drawings

U
�o ap°a
o B
�Y Ell.
"TO
E
�' W4
2 � Em ELL £E
/ f �
III. om�
I -
E� o
V
/
I — -- �
V � I
E
j:.

MISS
-7,�

ua
United States Department of the InteriorSERVIUE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
September 30, 2021
Taylor Kiker
Kimley-horn
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Taylor.kikergkimley-hom.com
Dear Taylor Kiker:
Subject: NCDA Douglas Troutman Logistics Center; Iredell County, North Carolina
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondences dated April 20, 2021 and September 27, 2021, wherein you solicit our
comments regarding project -mediated impacts to federally protected species. We submit the
following comments in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321
et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, the proposed commercial development would entail the
construction a distribution center (approximately 1.7 million square foot total building space),
and parking/access appurtenances on approximately 39 acres in Troutman, North Carolina. The
proposed project is anticipated to require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The action area is composed of undeveloped open space, mixed successional forest, riparian
areas, and transitional habitats.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the action area
(50CFR 402.02) for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (*otis septentrionalis).
However, the final 4(d) rule, (effective as of February 16, 2016) exempts incidental take of
northern long-eared bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a
known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during
the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Based on the information provided, the project would occur at
a location where any incidental take that may result from associated activities is exempt under
the 4(d) rule for this species. Although not required, we encourage the Applicant to avoid
any associated tree clearing activities during this animal's active season from April 1—
October 15.
Based on the information provided, suitable habitat occurs onsite for the federally threatened
dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniora) and endangered Schweinitz's sunflower

(Helianthus schweinitzii). We acknowledge that targeted botanical surveys conducted during the
appropriate survey windows did not detect evidence for these species at that time. Since the
proposed project would impact suitable habitat for these species, but no evidence for these plants
were detected using appropriate methods, we would concur with a may affect, not likely to
adversely affect determination from the action agency for these species.
Based on the information provided, we believe that suitable habitat is not present onsite for any
other federally protected species, and we require no further action at this time. Please be aware
that obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We offer the following recommendations on behalf of natural resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground -disturbing
activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing native vegetation
should be retained (if possible) to maintain riparian cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas
should be revegetated with native vegetation as soon as the project is completed. Ground
disturbance should be limited to what will be stabilized quickly, preferably by the end of the
workday. Natural fiber matting (coir) should be used for erosion control as synthetic
netting can trap animals and persist in the environment beyond its intended purpose.
Riparian Buffers
Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems. They
accomplish the following:
1. Catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint-source pollutants
from reaching streams.
2. Enhance the in -stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source
pollutants.
3. Act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods)
and by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which
maintains stream flows during dry periods).
4. Catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and
creating logjams.
5. Stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology.
6. Provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web.
7. Maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
Forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide
along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater])
should be created and/or maintained adjacent to all aquatic areas. Impervious surfaces, ditches,

pipes, roads, utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission, etc.), and other infrastructure that
requires maintenance, cleared rights -of -way and/or compromise the functions and values of the
forested buffers should not occur within these riparian areas.
Utili . Lines
We encourage the Applicant to consider utilizing directional drilling to accomplish any
necessary utility line installation. Utility crossings of streams should be kept to a minimum, and
all utility infrastructure (including manholes) should be kept out of riparian buffer areas.
Directional boring under streams significantly minimizes impacts to aquatic resources and
riparian buffers.
If directional boring cannot be used and trenching is determined to be the only viable method,
every effort should be made to ensure that impacts to in -stream features are minimized and
stabilized upon completion of the project. Our past experiences with open -trench crossings
indicate that this technique increases the likelihood for future lateral movement of the stream
(which could undercut or erode around the utility line), and the correction of such problems
could result in costly future maintenance and devastating impacts to natural resources.
Therefore, as much work as possible should be accomplished in the dry, and the amount of
disturbance should not exceed what can be successfully stabilized by the end of the workday.
Regardless of the crossing method, all utility lines should cross streams perpendicularly.
Stream Crossings
Bridges or spanning structures should be used for all permanent roadway crossings of streams
and associated wetlands. Structures should span the channel and the floodplain in order to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic and terrestrial
organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams, wetlands, and floodplains.
Bridges should be designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the stream,
approaches and abutments do not constrict the stream channel, and the crossing is perpendicular
to the stream. Spanning some or all of the floodplain allows stream access to the floodplain,
dissipates energy during high flows, and provides terrestrial wildlife passage. When bank
stabilization is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimized and that a
riprap-free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. If fill in
the floodplain is necessary, floodplain culverts should be added through the fill to allow the
stream access to the floodplain during high flows.
If bridges are not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts.
Bottomless culverts preserve the natural stream substrate, create less disturbance during
construction, and provide a more natural post -construction channel. Culverts should be of
sufficient size to leave natural stream functions and habitats at the crossing site unimpeded.
Culvert installation and presence should not change water depth, volume (flow), or velocity
levels that permit aquatic organism passage; and accommodate the movement of debris and bed
material during bankfull events. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
In the event that a traditional culvert is the only option, the culvert design should provide for a
minimum water depth in the structure during low flow or dry periods. Sufficient water depth

should be maintained in all flow regimes so as to accommodate both the upstream and
downstream movement of aquatic species. Water depth inside the culvert must be adequate for
fish to be completely submerged and all other aquatic life to move freely, even during low flow
periods. The culvert should be designed and installed at the same slope as the stream grade to
maintain an acceptable water velocity for aquatic life passage and for stream substrate
characteristics to be retained within the culvert.
Where feasible, we recommend the use of multiple barrels, in addition to a low flow barrel, to
accommodate flood flows. Floodplain barrels should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevations and discharge onto floodplain benches. Where appropriate, install
sills on the upstream end of floodplain barrels to restrict or divert the base stream flow to a single
barrel. If the culvert is longer than 40 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics the existing stream pattern. This will enhance the passage of
aquatic life by: (1) depositing and retaining sediment in the barrel, (2) maintaining channel
depth and flow regimes, and (3) providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at [e-mail], if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-21-246.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
:l