20091085 Ver 1_401 Application_20091009

Letter of Transmittal
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
[phone] fax
pg-085
svAi j7 S&ME
DATE: 10.13.09 I JOB NO: 1357-07-030A
ATTENTION: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604-2260
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
? Shop drawings
® Copy of letter
® Attached
? Prints
? Report
RE: North Point Resources Property
Troutman, N.C.
? Under separate cover via the following items:
? Plans ? Draft ? Specifications
COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION
5 10.13.09 1 Copies of Nationwide Permit Application Package
1 10.01.09 2 Check for $570
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
? For approval
? As requested
? FOR BIDS DUE:
® For your record
? For review and comment ?
? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
?s \N L9 IW
DENR - WATER OUAL'TY
V&MMDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
REMARKS: Attached please find the above. Please let us know if you have questions Thank you
SIGN:
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com

t t
*--S&ME
October 13, 2009
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Reference: Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application
North Point Resources Property
Troutman, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-07-030A
Dear Mr. Chapin and Ms. Karoly:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit this application for impacts to waters of the
U.S. in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 39 and the corresponding N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) General
Certification. S&ME is working on behalf of North Point Resources, LLC B, who will
be considered the applicant for this permit. Please find enclosed the following:
• Figures: Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), 2005
Aerial Photograph (Figure 3), Site Plan and Impact Detail (Figure 4) and Cross
Section Detail (Figure 5);
• Appendix l: Completed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) and Agent
Authorization Form;
• Appendix fl: Site Photographs;
• Appendix Ill: Wetland Determination Forms, Stream Assessment Forms and
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms;
• Appendix IV: Copies of Agency Correspondence
• Appendix V: Cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey
• Appendix VI: Copy of EEP Acceptance Letter
• A check for $570 (DWQ Processing Fee)
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application SWE Project No. 1357-07-030A
North Point Resources Property Troutman N.C. October 13, 2009
PROJECT BACKGROUND
For purposes of this NWP application, the subject property is referred to as the North
Pointe Resources Property. The site is located east of and adjacent to Interstate 77 and
west of and adjacent to N.C. Highway 21 (Charlotte Highway) near Troutman, Iredell
County, North Carolina (35.666° N, 80.856° W). The approximate location of the
subject property is depicted by the attached Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), a portion of the
Shepherds, NC (1991) USGSTopographic Map (Figure 2), and a 2005 Aerial Photograph
(Figure 3).
S&ME originally completed a jurisdictional delineation of the subject property on July
18, 2006, and then re-delineated the on-site boundaries on July 30, 2007 such that the
jurisdictional boundary flags could be accurately surveyed and platted by a registered
land surveyor. Jurisdictional areas are limited to one perennial stream (Stream 1), one
intermittent stream (Stream 2) and one wetland area (Wetland A), as indicated in the Site
Plan and Impact Detail (Figure 4).
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is comprised of open fields, wooded uplands, riparian areas and
light residential development and a cellular tower. Vegetation within the subject property
is described in greater detail below. Photographs of existing site conditions are included
in Appendix 11.
Wooded uplands in the subject property were young and vegetated with scrub pine (Pinus
virginiana) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifua) in the canopy. The dense canopy
and relative youth of the wooded areas yielded a sparse shrub layer, which was largely
limited to blackberry (Rubes sp.). The herbaceous layer in the uplands was dominated by
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Dominant overstory species within riparian corridors and topographically lower portions
of the subject property consisted of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicum), tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and black willow (Salix nigra). Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) were dominant shrubs in the riparian area.
Herbaceous vegetation in these areas included Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliotum), soft rush
(Juncus effusus), and cattail (Typha latifolia). An on-site wetland (Wetland A) was
characterized by an open marshy area dominated by herbaceous vegetation, including soft
rush, goldenrod, and cattail.
A depressional area sloping southwards from the north-central portion of the site was
dominated by kudzu (Pueraria montana). Open fields in the subject property were
frequently maintained by apparent mowing and were dominated by Elliott's broomsedge
(Andropogon elliottii).
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application SWE Project No. 1357-07-030A
North Point Resources Property, Troutman, N.C. October 13, 2009
ON-SITE JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
On-site waters of the U.S. are limited to two streams (Stream l - a relatively permanent
water [RPW] with perennial flow, and Stream 2 - a tributary to Stream 1 with
intermittent flow) and one wetland area (Wetland A).
Stream 1
Stream l is an RPW with perennial flow. Stream l is located within the central portion
of the property (Figure 3), and eventually drains off-site to Kerr Branch. Stream l flows
onto the site at the western property boundary through a culvert located in the Interstate
77 right-of-way. Over the course of its length on the subject property (approximately
1,300 linear feet [lf]), Stream l flows through three additional culverts before flowing
off-site at the eastern property boundary. Portions of the riparian areas adjacent to
Stream I were mowed and cultivated in the past. The channel bed generally ranged from
three to eight feet wide, and the substrate was comprised of silt and clay, with smaller
areas of cobble and bedrock. Portions of the stream were incised and exhibited eroding
banks.
Stream 2
Stream 2 is an RPW with seasonal (intermittent) flow that drains to Stream 1. Portions of
Stream 2 contained several inches of water, although little flow was observed. The
channel bed generally ranged from two to three feet wide, and the substrate was
comprised of silt and clay. Stream 2 is approximately 108 If.
Stream Quality Assessment worksheets prepared for Streams I and 2 by S&ME are
included in Appendix III.
Wetland A
Wetland A is an emergent wetland located in a former agricultural field within the central
portion of the property adjacent to Stream 1. Wetland A is approximately 0.15 acre in
size. Stream I was historically culverted beneath the location of Wetland A, and likely
continues to support hydrology to Wetland A through overland flow during flood events.
A Routine Wetland Determination form prepared for Wetland A was submitted to the
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office on July 24, 2006.
In connection with the original delineation, Mr. Steve Chapin with USACE visited the
site on November 7, 2006, and confirmed the accuracy of the delineated boundaries.
Additionally, Mr. Alan Johnson with the DWQ visited the site on August 15, 2006, and
confirmed that Stream I was considered a perennial channel, and Stream 2 was
considered intermittent and unimportant.
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms are included in Appendix III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves development of the subject property as a retail shopping
center and its associated access, parking and infrastructure. The anchor store and its
f J
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application SWE Project No. 1357-07-030A
North Point Resources Property Troutman, N.C. October 13, 2009
loading areas will be located adjacent to Interstate 77 in the northwestern portion of the
site, while two smaller buildings for additional commercial retail sales will be sited in the
eastern and northeastern portions of the site, respectively. Primary parking for the
facility will be located in the central portion of the site east of the anchor building (Figure
4). Access to the northern half of the site from Charlotte Highway will be provided by
Lexus Drive in the northern portion of the site and a newly-constructed roadway to the
south. Currently, access to the southern half of the site, where future commercial retail
development will eventually occur, is prohibited by Stream 1, which roughly bisects the
property. Accordingly, construction of an access road to the southern portion of the site
will require construction of a vehicular access way across Stream 1. Details of the
proposed crossing, including plan view and cross-section drawings, are included on
Figures 4 and 5. The portion of Stream 1 located beneath the proposed roadway will be
piped through a 126-1f, 84-inch, reinforced concrete culvert. To reduce impacts, concrete
wing walls will be constructed at the upstream and downstream ends of the pipe.
Because of the existing configuration of Stream 1, approximately 27 If of its length
downstream of the proposed culvert will be graded to tie back into the original channel.
Impacts to Stream 2 and Wetland A will result from fill placement necessary for
construction of a retaining wall and building pad necessary for adequate development of
the commercial retail center. Construction of the retaining wall will eliminate the need
for additional impacts to Stream l associated with construction of the anchor building
and its associated parking area.
PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed roadway will result in permanent impacts to approximately
180 if of Stream 1. Retaining walls and placement of fill material in connection with
construction of the commercial retail development will impact approximately 80 If of
Stream 2 and less than 0.01 acre of Wetland A. These impacts are summarized in Table l
below.
Table 1: Impact Summary
Stream ID Classification Proposed Impact (If)
1 Perennial 180
2 Intermittent/Unimportant 80
Wetland ID Classification Proposed Impact (acre)
A Emergent <0.01
PROTECTED SPECIES
S&ME conducted a protected species review and vegetative communities assessment of
the subject property to evaluate whether current site conditions are suitable for those
protected terrestrial species whose presence may be currently or historically documented
in Iredell County. S&ME's review of potential protected terrestrial species habitat
entailed a literature review of existing records obtained from federal and state sources to
4
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application SWE Project No. 1357-07-030A
North Point Resources Property, Troutman N.C. October 13, 2009
identify any additional documented records of protected species known to occur in Iredell
County. S&ME reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) county species
list and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) webpage for records of
federally protected species within Iredell County. Listed species and their respective
federal and state status are identified in Table 2. Explanations of federal rankings are
included at the end of the table.
Table 2: Protected Species Summary
Species Federal Status State Status
Glyptemys muhlenbergii - Bog Turtle T (S/A) T
Hexastylis naniflora - Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf T T
i (b/A) = i hreatened, similarity of Appearance
Additionally, S&ME personnel reviewed available supporting information including the
Shepherds, N.C. USGS Topographic Quadrangle and 2002 aerial photography of the
study area on the Iredell County GIS website. S&ME also provided the NCNHP and
USFWS with scoping letters requesting comment on the proposed project. The NCNHP
responded to the scoping request in a letter dated January 22, 2007 stating that they had
no records of rare of endangered species in the vicinity of the site. The USFWS
responded with a February 15, 2007 letter stating that they had no records of rare of
endangered species in the vicinity of the site. Copies of the NCNHP and USFWS
response letters are included in Appendix IV.
A description of the listed species, and typical habitat associated with these species, are
provided below.
Bog Turtle (C/emmys muhlenbergii)
The bog turtle is a small semi-aquatic turtle, with a distinctive patch on each side of the
head which can vary from yellow, orange or red depending on the population. The
carapace is 3 to 4.5 inches in length (7.6 to] 1.4 cm). The carapace is not strongly keeled
and has yellowish red scutes. In old adults the carapace will be worn smooth,
presumably from burrowing in soil, while juveniles possess a rougher textured carapace.
The plastron is hingless, dark brown to black with yellowish or brown mottling. The skin
is gray to brown streaked with red or yellow markings.
The bog turtle is a habitat specialist and is most commonly found in bogs, swamps, and
wet meadows which have slow and shallow streams with deep soft muck soils and
tussock-forming herbaceous vegetation. This turtle often burrows in the mud and is
considered an elusive species that may be difficult to find. The southern population of
the bog turtle ranges from southern Virginia to northern Georgia. It is protected as
"threatened by S/A" because it closely resembles individuals of the northern population
that ranges from New York and Massachusetts south to Maryland, thus causing difficulty
in enforcing prohibitions protecting the northern population. This S/A designation
prohibits collecting individual turtles from this population and bans interstate and
international commercial trade.
5
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application SWE Project No. 1357-07-030A
North Point Resources Property Troutman N.C October 13, 2009
The USFWS county species list identifies the bog turtle as an historic occurrence in
Iredell County, indicating that this species has not been observed here within the past 50
years, while the NCNHP webpage lists the bog turtle as a current record.
Wetland A was considered potential habitat for the bog turtle because this area was
characterized by mucky soils and relatively little woody vegetation. This area was
initially surveyed for the presence of bog turtles during the January 15, 2007 field review.
While no individuals were located during that review, the potential for their occurrence
was considered possible. The January 15, 2007 field review was considered an
improbable time to locate reptiles as they hibernate in the winter months. Bog turtles can
burrow up to 24 inches into the mud making it difficult to locate specimens at the time
the original assessment was performed.
Accordingly, S&ME returned to the site on July 30, 2007 for a second field review of
Wetland A. S&ME personnel employed visual survey and manual survey techniques.
Rivulets and runs in the wetland area were observed and vegetation moved to promote
visual survey. In more mucky areas, PVC piping was used to carefully probe and
potential individuals were removed from the muck to be identified. Field review of
Wetland A did not reveal individuals at this location. It should be noted that bog turtles
can be difficult to locate because they burrow up to 24 inches in the muck, dense
vegetation, and also because they often leave wetland habitat during summer months
migrating up to 0.5 miles into the uplands and other small wetland systems. Optimal
search time for this species is early to late spring, and uplands were not reviewed in this
habitat field review.
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis nanitlora)
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is an evergreen, perennial herb in the birthwort family. It is
distinguished from other members in the genus by the small size of the flowers, which
appear in late March and early April. The leaves are dark green, sometimes with silvery
or gray mottling. Frequently, the tip of the leaf has a small indentation. The flowers are
borne near the ground surface, often under leaf litter, and are brownish to greenish in
color. The habitat of dwarf-flowered is open deciduous woods, along streambanks, often
on Pacolet or Musella soils. During the field review, populations of dwarf-flowered
heartleaf were not observed along the on-site stream corridors. Further, according to the
USDA Soil Survey of Iredell County, soils located along the on-site streams are mapped
as Cecil, Louisburg and Louisa.
In summary, review of federally protected species known to occur within Iredell County
identified one animal and one plant species. The subject property was field-reviewed for
the presence of these species. No protected species were observed during field review
and it is anticipated that there will be no impact to these species.
HISTORIC PROPERTIES
S&ME also provided a scoping letter to the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). SHPO responded with a February 26, 2007 letter (Appendix IV) identifying the
potential for archaeological resources on-site, and recommending that an archaeological
assessment of the site be conducted. Accordingly.. S&ME completed a cultural resources
6
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application SWE Project No. 1357-07-030A
North Point Resources Property, Troutman N.C. October 13, 2009
literature review and reconnaissance survey of the site (Appendix V) in order to further
assess the area's potential for containing significant cultural resources and to make
recommendations regarding additional work that may be required under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended.
S&ME's assessment included a background literature review and records search
conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and at the SHPO
office in Raleigh. The records examined at SHPO included a review of National Register
and survey files for properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.
Records examined at OSA included master archaeological site maps, state archaeological
site files, and associated archaeological reports. The area examined was a 0.5-mile radius
around the subject property. Review of the files and records at SHPO and OSA indicated
there were no previously recorded archaeological sites or aboveground historic resources
within a 0.5-mile radius of the project tract.
On July 26, 2007, a cultural resources reconnaissance survey of the subject property was
conducted. S&ME Principal Archaeologist William Green, M.A., RPA, conducted the
survey. The survey was conducted primarily by excavating shovel tests at selected
locations across the project area, and was supplemented by a pedestrian survey in areas
with good ground surface exposure. Eighteen shovel tests, all approximately 10 cm
deep, were excavated across the subject property. Soil was uniformly eroded across the
entire tract, and no artifacts were found in the shovel tests or on the ground surface.
In addition to the archaeological survey, a limited architectural resource reconnaissance
was conducted to determine whether the proposed project would affect aboveground
National Register listed or eligible properties. Accessible public roads within and
adjacent to the project area were driven.
The archaeological reconnaissance survey conducted by S&ME did not encounter
archaeological sites within the project tract. The survey also determined that the project
area has a very low potential for containing significant archaeological sites due to severe
erosion, moderately steep slopes, and prior disturbance in the eastern portion of the
project area. The architectural reconnaissance did not record any aboveground historic
properties within or adjacent to the project area. Accordingly, no additional cultural
resource investigation is necessary.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Our client has considered other alternatives to the project as proposed, but the current
plan is the most practicable alternative available to ensure the project's economic
viability. Because Stream I bisects the project area, access to the southern half of the site
could not otherwise be obtained without construction of the proposed crossing. Other
alternatives evaluated by our client were considerably more expensive, would not comply
with regulatory requirements, or involved additional impacts to jurisdictional areas.
Accordingly, impacts associated with the project have been minimized to the extent
practicable. The bottom of the culvert will be placed at a depth below the natural stream
bottom to maintain aquatic passage during drought or low flow conditions, and efforts
will be made to maintain the existing channel slope. Linear impacts to Stream l have
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application SWE Project No. 1357-07-030A
North Point Resources Property Troutman N.C. October 13, 2009
been further minimized by the incorporation of concrete wingwalls. To minimize
impacts, the crossing has been designed to the minimum width necessary to safely
accommodate construction of the roadway.
During construction, additional measures will be utilized to limit the impacts identified
above. These measures include: 1) coordination with personnel from Iredell County's
Erosion Control Division; 2) the use of barricades identifying construction limits; 3)
regular inspection and maintenance during construction; and 4) a pre-construction
meeting for the purpose of reviewing the aforementioned measures.
The design team is familiar with the conditions of State General Water Quality
Certifications (GC) 3705. Accordingly, the proposed project has been designed to
comply with the applicable conditions specified therein that are currently in effect, and
construction activities at the site will be conducted in accordance with applicable
conditions of the NWP. No wastes, spoils, solids or fills will be placed within waters or
riparian areas beyond the limits of those depicted in this NWP application.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices equaling those outlined in the most
recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual" will be required as part of the project specifications that govern the proper
design to meet appropriate turbidity water quality standards.
STORMWATER
Kimley-Horn, Inc. (Kimley-Horn), the project civil engineer, has prepared a Stormwater
Management Plan for the proposed commercial retail development. Stormwater at the
site will be treated and detained by two wet detention ponds. The stormwater will be
routed to the ponds via a storm sewer pipe network. The storrnwater system has been
designed such that post-development rates for the one-year and I 0-year, 24-hour storm
events will be less than the pre-development rates for such events.
The proposed project is located within the Town of Troutman's Jurisdiction. Although
The Town of Troutman requires that the post-development rates for the l 0-year, 24-hour
storm event be less than or equal to the pre-development rate, they have not yet adopted
the Phase II Stormwater program. Accordingly, Kimley-Horn will submit a copy of the
Stormwater Management Plan to DWQ's Wetland Unit for approval prior to development
of the site.
MITIGATION
The proposed project involves impacts to greater than 1501f of perennial channel.
Accordingly, our client proposes to make the appropriate payment to the EEP to
adequately compensate for impacts to the affected stream. Based on the degraded nature
of Stream l (as confirmed by the USACE during the November 7, 2006), payment to
EEP is proposed on a l :1 basis (180 if of warm-water stream). Because project-wide
wetland impacts do not exceed 0.10 acre, compensatory wetland mitigation is not
required. A copy of an August 13, 2009 acceptance letter from EEP (the property is
referred to as Troutman Towne Center in the letter) is included in Appendix Vl.
8
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application SWE Project No. 1357-07-030A
North Point Resources Property, Troutman, N.C. October 13, 2009
Note: Our client plans to make payment to EEP at the time of the planned property
transaction closing, tentatively scheduled for February 2010. None of the impacts
specified in this application will occur prior to our client's payment to EEP. Accordingly,
we request that the permit be conditioned such that payment to EEP can occur at the time
of the property closing, but before any of the work authorized by this NWP occurs.
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed NWP application, we are requesting your
acceptance of this permit application. Your timely response is appreciated, and please
feel free to contact us if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Joey Lawler, P.W.S.
Natural Resources Project Manager
(fa
Catherine Luckenbaugh, C.E.
Natural Resources Project Manager
Senior Review by Al Quarles, P.G.
Attachments
cc: Brian Fletcher, North Point Resources, LLC
Matt Edwards, P.E., Kimley-Horn, Inc.
JoL/MW/jol
S A 1357\P R OJ E C T S \2007\07-030A
FIGURES
`atesv? le z ? ;
70
Statesville
\
L Troutman ` s
i
Duke Power State Park
I
I ,
Hicks Creek
Rocky Creek
y i •? % i &01 1
Lake-h'oiman? Ai
Byers Creek
Lake'Norman &if-Catawba ' i ` T
Project Location
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ESRI STREETMAP USA DATASET (2000). PLEASE NOTE -
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER 0 2 3i
USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME,INC.ASSUMESNORESPONSIBIUTYFOR -'{
ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. MII@E
I i
.ALE. AS SHOWN FIGURE
4TE: SITE VICINITY MAP NO.
10-7-2009 f 4' S&ME North Point Resources Property
RAWN
BY:
iECK DDH r,. yy Troutman, North Carolina
1
ECKEDBY: MW PROJECTNO:
1357-07-030A
? t
i _?"'.? ?` _ ; l ? ? ? ??.?-- ? •-ate, ` _ _
IX-
- `? -
7.
'- ' ?, j ,? ._?• 1.
%
• t 4 .?` `4 t s t I"
? R .rte . ..r { _ ~ t-' f ? " G' ' ,? • ?^l ?'t `i ? , } ? ?"' ;
??"-- -fir ? I y - r`;?J• ? ?? - * j ?L`• °:} ? 1+
' r,?-'^. ? ? 1 , ?, `?? I ? ` , - _ yam, f (+ r ti _ ? ^'?-.•-`? 4 ? ? ? = •i•?
4 li i \ s?^? '`. ??? ? 4 5 • '-?,? r ! ? ` 1. ? i J` off }?.
•{J ? ? I ! JJ?) ,_„-?. ?'. • f-, r 1? itr f-r,;. ^? ,:s.. i r , ' ? -
Q Project Area f? ? , ? ; i ter' `? - f
? ?t, r• l : ? 1 ? ;
REFERENCE: USGS 1991 SHEPHERDS [NC] QUAD SHEET
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE IREDELL COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIs)
DEPARTMENT WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR 0 500 1,000. ,500,•
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO )
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
CALE: \ r
AS SHOWN FIGURE
)ATE: 10-7-2009 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP No.
RAWN BY. S&ME North Point Resources Property
DDH Troutman, North Carolina Z
HECKEDBY: MW PROJECT NO:
1357-07-030A i
1- 1
• -•„? \'. ~? qtr-' ?7-S .fir 1 ri'_??: • '• ! ? ;t? 1! ? '
Ilk
r
71? _C
%
,
s L ,
`ter. ?° ? rll `? •?' , \`, ?`- _? .? ¦? • ? 1 • .._
•.? • ,I ¦ i _ [ i ors '!??- •: ?'
SS
44
r ?/ { ? "'FFF"'aaa
? I
0 Project Area !1 'r;r/€,,
REFERENCE: USGS 1991 SHEPHERDS [NC] QUAD SHEET THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE IREDELL COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
DEPARTMENT WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. -h
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. IT IS S&ME, I NC. NC. MEANT FOR ASSUMES NO 0 500 1'000' ,500
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE ORANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. r_ ?i•
AS SHOWN FIGURE
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NO.
10-7-2009 North Point Resources Property
DDH S&ME
Troutman, North Carolina
2
BY MW PROJECT NO:
1357-07-030A

NOTE: Jurisdictional features identified on this map were originally delineated by
S&ME on July 18, 2006 and venfied on-site by the USACE on Nove N
mber 7, \ t ?I
2006. Stream classification calls were verified by DWQ on August 15, 2006.
O
? J
,
?C •? n w"
44
Stream 2
10
:4 108 LF
7
0
! WetlDAcre
0.15
Stream 1?''
1300 LF71
1 n
-?
Y GREEK-?JN
Lip
t
0 200 , 400 600
Project Area
REFERENCE: - Seasonal RPW
THE ABOVE GIs LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE IREDELL COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIs)
DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR Perennial RPW
ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY
DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Wetland
?CALE: 1„ = 400'
FIGURE
ATE: 10-7-2009 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH No.
S&ME North Point Resources Property
RAWN BY: DDH Troutman, North Carolina 3
HECKED BY. MW PROJECT NO:
1357-07-030A

0 15 30 45
I I??
NOTE: CULVERT DESIGN WAS PROVIDED BY
KIMLEY-HORNE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Scale: AS SHOWN
CROSS SECTION DETAIL Figure:
Checked by: MW S&ME North Point Resources Property
Troutman, North Carolina 5
Drawn by: DDH
Date: 10-12-2009 Project No.: 1357-07-030A
APPENDIX I:
COMPLETED PCN AND
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
09' 1 0 8 5
O?0? W AT F9?G
v
1 1 ? =i
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification C Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing """"°-----°--
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the

Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NWP No. 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ® Yes ? No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: North Point Resources Property rr r=
2b. County: Iredell
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Troutman OP T 4

2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A 2609
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: DENR-WATER QUALITY
N/A 1TILMDSANDSTORMWATERBRANCH
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Point Resources, LLC B
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Unknown
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if

applicable):
Brian Fletcher
3d. Street address: 124 Iron Gate Circle, Mooresville, NC, 28117
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page l of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version
4. Applicant information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is. ? Agent ® Other, specify: Owner/Developer
4b. Name: See Owner
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Joey Lawler, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
S$ME, Inc.
5c. Street address: 9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no.: 704-523-4726
5f. Fax no.: 704-525-3953
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 4740921175, 4740923376, 4740926453, 4740936021
and 4740828886
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.666° Longitude: - 80.856°
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: Project Area = -75 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to UT to Kerr Branch
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: 12-101-21-3-1-1, Class C
2c. River basin: Upper Yadkin (HUC 03040101)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area consists of a mixture of open field and vacant woodland. Surrounding land use consists of a mixture of
commercial, scattered residential, agricultural and undeveloped areas.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.15 acre
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Stream 1 is approximately 1,300 If, and Stream 2 is approximately 108 If.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project will involve construction of a commercial retail development.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project involves development of the subject property as a retail shopping center and its associated access,
parking and infrastructure. Currently, access to the southern half of the site is prohibited by Stream 1, with roughly
bisects the property. Accordingly, construction of an access road to the southern portion of the site will require
construction of a vehicular access way across Stream 1. Details of the proposed crossing, including plan view and cross-
section drawings, are included on Figures 4 and 5. The portion of Stream 1 located beneath the proposed roadway will
be piped through a 126-If, 84-inch, reinforced concrete culvert. To reduce impacts, concrete wing walls will be
constructed at the upstream and downstream ends of the pipe. Because of the existing configuration of Stream 1,
approximately 27 If of its length downstream of the proposed culvert will be graded to tie back into the original channel.
The proposed project will require approximately 180 If of permanent impact to Stream 1 (Perennial). The permanent
impact is associated with placement of a reinforced concrete pipe sufficient to effectively convey storm events and meet
NCDOT design requirements.
Impacts to approximately 80 If of Stream 2 (Intermittent, Unimportant) and less than 0.01 acre of Wetland A (Emergent)
will occur as a result of retaining wall construction and fill placement associate with construction of the retail facility.
Equipment to be used for construction of the roadway and retail facility include industry-standard earth-moving equipment
such as bulldozers, trackhoes and dump trucks.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property !
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: See Cover Letter
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: S&ME, Inc.
Name (if known): Joey Lawler, PWS Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Steve Chapin with the USACE visted the site on November 7, 2006, and confirmed the accuracy of the delineated
boundaries. Alan Johnson with the DWQ visited the site on August 15, 2006, and confirmed the stream classifications.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
N/A
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ® Yes ? No
6b. If yes, explain.
Although there are no final plans, additonal site development may occur in the future. Market factors will likley dictate
whether or not such future development occurs. No additional wetland or streams are located on the site south of Stream
1. In the event such future development occurs, 404 and 401 permits will be obtained by the applicant if necessary.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ®P ? T Fill material Emergent ? Yes
® No ® Corps
® DWQ <0.01
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts <0.01
2h. Comments: Wetlands will be impacted for construction of a retaining wall.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)

S1 ®P ? T Culvert and
stream Stream 1 - UT to ® PER ® Corps
5-6
180
realignment Kerr Branch ?INT ®DWQ
S2 ®P ? T Fill placement Stream 2 - UT to ? PER ® Corps 3-4 80
Stream 1 ® INT ® DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWO
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 260
3i. Comments: Impacts will result from construction of road crossing and retaining wall.
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: No open waters are located within the project area.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose
number of pond
Wetland Impacts (acres) I Stream Impacts (feet)
Flooded I Filled I Excavated I Flooded I Filled I Excavated
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
Project is in which protected basin?
6b. 6c. 6d.
Buffer impact
number - Reason
Permanent (P) or for
Temoorarv (T) impact
B1 ?P?T
B2 ?P?T
B3 ?P?T
6i. Comments:
Buffer
Stream name mitigation
required?
? Yes
? No
? Yes
? No
? Yes
? No
6b. Total buffer impacts
Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
(square feet) (square feet)
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
? Catawba ? Randleman
6e. 6f. 6g.
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project involves premanent impacts to approximately 180 If of Stream 1. Extensive use of retaining walls will
allow the remaining length of Stream 1 (approximately 1,120 If) to remain unaffected. Impacts at the proposed crossing were
limited through extensive use of retaining walls and wing walls.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
To prevent sedimentation of downstream portions of Stream 1, construction will be conducted in the dry through diversion of
the channel prior to construction. Following construction, disturbed areas outside of the construction area will be restored to
original grade and elevation. The proposed project should not result in permanent changes in pre-construction elevation
contours or stream dimension, pattern or profile beyond those described in this application. Excess material will be removed
to a high ground disposal area.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" and approved by the local governing authority will be in compliance with
specifications governing the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices
(BMP's) to comply with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard. Sediment and erosion control measures placed in
waters will be removed and the original grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources has released
the project. Impacts have been avoided and minimized, and appropriate measures will be taken during construction to allow
flow and circulation patterns of waters of the U.S. to remain unaffected. After construction, disturbed areas will be seeded and
restored. No permanent or temporary impacts to additional on-site streams or wetlands are anticipated.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ® Yes ? No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ® DWO ® Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
® Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Ouantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ® Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 180 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ® warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWO only): N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4h. Comments: Applicant plans to make payment to EEP at the time of the planned property transaction closing, tentatively
scheduled for February 2010. None of the impacts specified in this application will occur prior to our client's payment to EEP.
Applicant request that the permit be conditioned such that payment to EEP can occur at the time of the property closing, but
before any of the work authorized by this NWP occurs.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
N/A
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ? Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a . Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b . If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments: N/A
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? >24 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: N/A
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
Stormwater at the site will be treated and detained by two wet detention ponds. The stormwater will be routed to the
ponds via a storm sewer pipe network. The stormwater system has been designed s uch that post-development rates for
the one-year and 10-year, 24-hour storm events will be less than the pre-development rates for such events.
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
® DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Town of Troutman
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
® Other: See Cover Letter
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
® Other: See Cover Letter
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ® No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ? Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments: N/A
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Potential future development of the site, if undertaken, is not anticipated to imapct nearby or downstream water quality.
Additonal wetlands and streams are not located within the undeveloped portion of the site south of Stream 1.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Municipal sanitary sewer
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?
?
Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
See Cover Letter.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/efh_coral/ims/viewer.htm
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
See Cover Letter.
S. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? http://polaris.mecklenburgcountync.gov
Joey Lawler, PWS 10/13/2009
Applicant/ en ' Printed Name Appli e ign Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an auth n letter from the applicant
is provid
Page 1 l of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
?-
,Fegstem .l.
PROGRAM
August 13, 2009
Tim Dollander
Chivas Retail Partners
5635 N. Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Project: Troutman Towne Center
Expiration of Acceptance: May 13, 2010
County: Iredell
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment 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 withlall other state iWeral,or local
This acceptance is valid for nine 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 the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer 11
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Yadkin 03040101 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0
Credits Yadkin 03040101 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchener at [phone].
Sincerely,
4 p
William D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Chapin, USACE-Asheville
Alan Johnson, NCDWQ-Mooresville
Joev Lawler, agent
File
Restorr;ii?j... F ... Prot"' Our f-ta,&
ALMA
WCD-E R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-16521919-715-0476 /www.nceep.net
APPENDIX II:
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

I Photo 1: View of property facing northeast.
y ? k

r

a x
Photo 3: View of wooded portion of the property.

Photo 2: View of property facing south.
x y2: T
40
k' ail V?I
,
3
a..'??Ld ?1w? .`•. ti
Y4 ! n ? i a r ? F a 1
c
KV?
Photo 4: View of Wetland A.
a ?k
vn?
S
Photo 5: View of Stream 1 facing upstream. Photo 6: View of Stream 2 facing downstream.
Taken by: JoL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
S&ME North Point Resources Property
Checked by: MW
r.
%g f Troutman, North Carolina
Date: 10.12.09
I Project No.: 1357-07-030A Photo Page 1
APPENDIX 111:
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS, STREAM ASSESSMENT
FORMS AND APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
FORMS

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project/Site: North Point Resources Property Date: 07.18.06
Applicant/Owner: North Point Resources, LLC B County: Iredell
Investigator: Joey Lawler, PWS State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the Site? YES NO Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID: Plot ID: A
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Lat 35.666°N Lon 80.856°W

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC 9.
2. Eupatorium capiliifolium H FACU 10.
3. Daucus carats H NI 11.
4. Asclepias cinerea H FAC 12.
5 Fescue sp. H - 13.
6. Vitis rotundifolia V FAC 14.
7. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 15.
8 Toxicodendron radicans V FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 5/6 = 83%
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs
? Other
® No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water (in.) None
Depth to Free Water in Pit (in.) +12"
Depth to Saturated Soil (in.) +12"
Remarks:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Pattern in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Wetland hydrology is not evident.
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cecil fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well-drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Kanhapludults Field Observations Confirm Mapped
Type? Yes ? No ?
PROFILE DESCRIPTION Community ID: Upland
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Texture,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-7 A 10 YR 4/4 -- -- Sandy loam
7-12+ B 10 YR 5/7 -- -- Clay loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
? Histosol
? Histic Epipedon
? Sulfidic Odor
? Aquic Moisture Regime
? Reducing Conditions
? Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors ? Concretions
? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in
Sandy Soils
? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Soil is not hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® YES ? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? YES ® NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
? YES ® NO
Hydric Soils Present? ? YES ® NO
Remarks:
Data point is not located within a wetland.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project/Site: North Point Resources Property Date: 07.18.06
Applicant/Owner: North Point Resources, LLC B County: Iredell
Investigator: Joey Lawler, PWS State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the Site? YES NO Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID: Plot ID: A
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Lat 35.666°N Lon 80.856°W

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera T FAC 9.
2. Salix nigra T OBL 10.
3. Acer rubrum T FAC 11.
4. Sambucus canadensis S FACW- 12.
5 Typha latifolia H OBL 13.
6. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 14.
7. Toxicodendron radicans V FAC 15.
$ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OB L, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 717 = 100%
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs
? Other
® No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water (in.) None
Depth to Free Water in Pit (in.) 2"
Depth to Saturated Soil (in.) Surface
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology is evident.
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
? Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Pattern in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
® Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Colfax sandy loam Drainage Class: SW Poor r

Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Fragiudults Field Observations Confirm Mapped
;Type? Yes ? No

PROFILE DESCRIPTION Community ID: Wetland
Depth H
r n Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mot?;IQ
o e r
n
1CheS)
M
unsell Most;

ansell Moist)

bU da, ice%Contras` p ,
C
Structure etc:-
0-8 A 10 YR 3/1 10YR 5/6 - Sandy loam
8-12+ E 1 10 YR 4'2 10YR 5/6 - j Sandy loam
? Histosol
? Histic Epipedon
? Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
? Reducing Conditions
? Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors
Remarks:
Soil is hydric.
? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[_I Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ? YES ? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? YES [NO
H ydric Soils Present?
? ? YES NO
;
Remarks:
Data point is located within a wetland.
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
YES NO
a
^?
":

I".C (tREA ,I{ ? P
1`, 1 €PI
-
. C ()ICI

Lvf3E2;1?1 .
A;ti'€inlow mountain
- Presence o no" peMent l}fs& n st Dine
nu lii)A1 01 uU 1.;s11 t' 1m y nmN
l',t i(tence of pl i.It huumf, .tl s!'afion
I'

IcUi'ilNili <i![illitis),7 = (I', li: i!iC' =Ill"'? (i-i? 11

_ ,il..A lit) I7(? `
inftswe o naf rant or c ,;wihol tihdie rgv
,
{ !L\tcn^:11' tl i') M A n3 1 !-. I. 0 1 = ill?!\ `Yc)I ltti! - - F _
(
p„r €;routadlr.atier discia ane

p- f h u wc:9: ,n
?l r I th "eu On cw. ,7 r.;? f ) { {. 3

.. ll,c cncC of ad
l accnl floot'lela i
) ,
nth lhoo`lrd I.i O cA c n$.Ac Clooilp! 7111 = 711:1 point'!
---

-- -- -
-
-- -

i a,l! e'nch,1te gat t' llloodl}t of a ae ce Sti ? - --- ---
;, „\ tu?i n !.al r tl t Iit l li f7 = 71r>: n< I„ (,'
-- - (i-' t
i rest€tce o a(i tkc n( Ml €€ ds r ?

rn liin;i i;t. , II ;. ul;lc = It); s fi, 1,}i.) O
) ti- ;
(i

-
q
(h annul ;inn 'ji)
_

t, A,;;n?}1C i)Y,hl1A`it1?Lc)i, 0: tl.l.,n.;l unuide.'f = 17L,A 1+,,,MU
_... _. 04 2
=
l
? S dimeln! input
(
Ic`Vli;'17 11l cl Cl)t ?.It it til'1 (7 milt 111 17(.1 `-l dililc'Ut
l7;1\ hl)lnt?7 (: ? 1
0.4 t)- 4
Sire i dicer. of clrafa€ael beet snh5tasate - -
l 1

7 f fnc ,xnnt _ ful,r? = i) ? u >? un 1>c tics = n7,7v l:>nutt? ? ?
- VV
n-5 2
_ _
, EN idenu of Channel incision oa -i<idelaing 1
!

clecp,v fn.l ,°d U be{l & 1 "Ink
_..--- - 111:1\ llt)tnl`+) 45
.
? 1
Presence of major bank failures

ti !
c'?\Nlc ""Won It no enkon 't.lhlc h,fnhc nmx pt)It71?} ? It.
` 2
-
loot depth and de n51i1' on hanks ? ? .--- -
(no Vi(w = 0: clt n S gIu iht(!1O t11 ?IFi1 i?c)I tits t
,---
impact bt a,'aEenltnie lkesfoch, o limber production , ,--
' 15
s Isob .1777ti,.d tit p u-! O_ no 't ItIcnc, iiLlA l)olnt?) t 1
r !
I y? mtsenca of a'dlle poo1kalll le pu4 comp x" _
Itt? .7l}! •t fl)l:? ?1 l)t tt) (t 1 ci, :!. :c'i(`1_>c:Li t)1., s? l?t?l l7;?, i. - ()-il
--- ------ -
1 17 if alait.at con ple-,

.:,t It lIt'7 act It Cct !l.!?J Ytli4 111ti\ i)t?lili?7 ? no
{ 5 l
00
_„ f_` aaatata? l tr\ C,-II m e ,It s e-a-.11 }eel
cl:lii on {t. cowinuo 1u> tin p nyA polnf`^3 -
_
: O
1 OWN eta le(ldttln,,,
- -

I

.
.
ilc'C]li1 illit?cclctl=0. hs;m ?usl,fc nhoI NA
1 (P4 4
,
,{I Yaesenct of,%ire !na inl e11 E l r lat vs t-'4 lei c =?1 --
I Inc' cl Itlc tw ( '. Ill 71t)i7. n, l.l? I( l4 \ (?! ' I {)- ? {)-? 1 l
Pf e se nce of aaaaf3h!ba w,
nr'lclO 4 aMI uM f;,nuM4, till - 1M ,>.OMK1 f
... - .-, Presence of f6h
r„ no ? v xiul?,• - {7 r,);7 nx7n. 111111 KI,III
? 1v l)c ? - nniv ilt?tni?)
?
i

13 €de nce l wildlife inc - ------- - -- --
(nl ct:OCUcc O: halt7cl.'tn( cv tt is ace = n'wN lhllnl`?) -
lolalPoinlsPossible iii('
- - --- Iti(} i()(i 34
---- -

TO A I. SCURE Udso enfu on f'I st
page) ---- --------
I hCyl , I'! wl ? Ili -C 17tH I-t.'-:1c` ( ,7 ti 11.1 1, .li:%InlS
.ib?' SSWNT i\'6 RKS111,;1
I
?^ y 3
t1
i {}
.- ..
s I j..
lb
1-
W 19

-• - .......... _.
M
1:E C 1t1:CYION 1 0IN [ RANGE
C HA C 1 E'RIS tC S - - S, C €}RF

Coastal ,
I Piedmont Mountain
- + ---
11reseltct l ES€'t 1? i pe=sistu"I l,ools ill st rciH

fll?t lit?11 ?)1 = t', X11 t?Il'? fit ,? _ ,Ii.1S '
l: zc of fl.lst linltinn illeraii; li
{i -ml N ?ill = (i.: no l1101:11'011 - Mil"
-
Ri_wl-ian Zo-:e
(Ili) hillli'V _ li"" Y? RlC' NIHke 1. _
.........
f.Iidence of nutrient or chemical :IiStll<F. _-

iltt
' round ti ',ter disch tt eye,

(nr dig 1.11tc i' p] it c C1) C I I
l'tc,enet ell `iclfl4l'ill lolldf7iaE4i

flt'1i)C{[?). r (} ?l ti.US \l 1i00tjpl..l i1 =;1i,.\ poillIO
l iilrenchnient floodplain ct'cs, --
l
IdC,i}il El tit (IL `:'1 fl. 17iC11Ulf f?tlt?ci 11 . - ?. 1 1S{3,1 ??1
f' r -t 11te of adl icPitl t € ti il3da

€
hannel`;ilmosifl
.
?CVtcll?;AC CIIMIIt..: Sut7D = u_ Ii.mm 'ilCandCl ?11a p+IUlltik
Sedinienl input i
CslC11tiR' dCp.),i1 Ill= {l: ilflic OI- no din1C111 = ILI\ poI1110 _
Size & dii ersitt of channel hell substrate
0- l -
(tin?. IIC)111U UI,,tl i) JiIlL'C, diwls': -rr1N p.1„l;s;
------- - ------
- - --- - - j
EN idc nce cif" t hanuef incision of NN idt nine
,
(dccpl? ulUti.d = t' ?Iilbjc hCd & h.uik? = Ili.,v l)rtiiit,?i
Presence of major hank tailnre4
3
(SC'YCI-c ri-o,ioll - i{: Ilk) clw ion. ?xtlhli hank, = llj iz poi ill. } -
Roof depth and densih ()it barihs
-
1)
.
1 ti
Al
,
{)iQ 1 "'i11C rool? _ {): dcll1 l:` I-ows thl-011;.Ilklmt 111:s nolj1f?i - _
?
-•
.... -- -- -=- -- - .
Impact ht' agi ic'tdltire liN'esloek, in llinher production ....--..--
!`+tll?j1111)uU? .mpi),:l =4): Iltt C%idcl)CC = llw
Presence of, comph
nlo rilltt, r1 , r. 1tu I? - t}. yell dc?c'irl?ixi ??11n1-<-1 ! _

11 hitat complexitt __....-_.

I

I limic or no 11171 ,1 ± 11"l'tlticm 1 tficd 17 )htt. i ill
a.c
C_ lllol?t' c Cil erase m er st F vanthc d
_
f?ilt) X11„CflIIL N?c =i;on 0: t't Intl n1)f illy c.lm" )II I)1,_ti POIJK? i
?nhsEr7lle einhe(fcleYhleSS _ ?
i

(dcC`)k C IifiCLItli_C{ =(, kw11 sitHctJlc ll t; -
Presence Ell Slreanl imerfehrates {scC p `C
'
{t _
{ {)_t !)-?
! 110 C% icI -
C'ilt'C tr, C:0111111011 1111711t1t-ll\ 11'f}e'? _ l11.i\ )ls ?t}t ::?' ! 1
Presence of, amphibians
{nt? C :dc`Il;C -1, t1a1111011. n,11IMt):1, .1 l34 ?: = al
Presence of fish

<I
i1 i` l dcncc
!) Ce3 Llita tl, Il U.1 k't(}i!? 11 pc'G= ,71.
I
(.1-.. .
_
F, ?l id(il cC € f l3 Rdlifc um'
! 11€' C%)dl')Itt - {?. txl",: ikLilil C'i idcncC = lli.i\ ..
- - - -------- ---------
Uotal Poil lti Possible I ()O l o o 1 1(}il -f'
TOTAL SCORE, wiso enter ml first paou)
t1
., ?'tl `)ls
J ) >'-:.'x. A.
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section 1V of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: 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: Iredell City: Troutman
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.666° N. Long. 80.856° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Kerr Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Kerr Branch
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040102
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are 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:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION D: 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]
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
E Relatively permanent waters (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: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: - 0.15 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: .
Boxes checked below shall be supposed by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below
7 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)
Supposing documentation is presented in Section 111.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 HLA.I and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HI.A.I and 2
and Section HI.D.I.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. 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 H1.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 waterbody 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 HI.B.] for
the tributary, Section 1I.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HI.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.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: square miles
Drainage area: acres
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from "IN W.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from 7NW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWs:
Tributary stream order. if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes; and erosional features generally and in the arid
.
West
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area. to flow into tributary 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: Pick List.
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: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime: seasonal.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: Hydric soil in channel bed.
? 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 ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent. or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum:
? physical markings:
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(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: Unknown.
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWlvt 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/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? 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 List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. 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 List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List 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):Undisturbed hardwood forest.
? 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: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland likley provide amphibian
habitat, pollutant removal and water stroage.
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:
1. 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 111.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 111.1):
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 111.1):
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. TIM SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. 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: See attached Stream Classification and Stream Quality Assessment worksheets.
? 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 111.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 1300 linear feet 5-6 width (fi).
? 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 forjurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (fi).
? 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 111.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 111.B and rationale in Section II1.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: A.15 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 111.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 I11.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):'a
? 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:
'See Footnote 4 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IIl.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
70 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 Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 type(s) 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
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: 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 (fi).
? Lakes/ponds: 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: See attcahed figures.
® 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: Shepherds, NC 1991.
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: 1960 Iredell County.
? 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):Site Photgraphs taken 07.13.07.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: DWQ Stream Evaluation Forms, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms and
Routine Wetland Determination Forms submitted to USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office on July 24, 2006.
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 l: 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: Iredell City: Troutman
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.666° N. Long. 80.856° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Kerr Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Kerr Branch
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040102
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are 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:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RNA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR pail 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):'
? 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: 108 linear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Pick List
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
? 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 111 below.
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).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION M: 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 HI.A.I and Section M.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections M.A.] and 2
and Section M.D.I.; otherwise, see Section M.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. 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 HI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section M.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 waterbody 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 IH.B.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HI.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section M.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 30 Pick List
Drainage area: 6 acres
Average annual rainfall: 44.9 inches
Average annual snowfall: 2 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List 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 Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT to UT to Kerrs Branch, which flows to Weathers Creek.
Tributary stream order, if known: I st.
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches. washes; and erosional features generally and in the arid
West_
s Flow route can be described by identifying; e.g ; tributary a. which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary 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: 3 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes: 4:1 (or greater).
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: Banks stabile due to invasives (kudzu).
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: None observed.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): <1 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: seasonal.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Yes. Explain findings: Hydric soil in channel bed.
? 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
? changes in the character of soil
? shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition ?
® water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g.; water color is clear, discolored, oily film: water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: No evidence of unnatural sedimentation or pollutant introduction observed.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Unknown.
'A 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): Young volunteer and invasive canopy.
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Habitat for crayfish and invertebrates.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that now 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 List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: Groundwater surfec eleveation appears to be near surface.
? 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 List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List 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):Undisturbed hardwood forest.
? 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: Pick List
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? (Y/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:
1. 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 111.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 111.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 111.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? 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:
® 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 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Stream 2 is considered "intermittent" by DWQ and USACE based on site visit. Stream 2 provides habitat and
]ifecycel support for aquatic organisms and transfers nutrients for downstream foodweb support .
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 108 linear feet 3 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs" that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a 7NW, 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 111.13 and rationale in Section 111.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 I11.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 Il1.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):'a
? 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:
'See Footnote a 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section I11.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 Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 type(s) 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
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: 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 (fi).
? Lakes/ponds: 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 applicanUconsultant:
® 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: Derita_ 1991.
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Mecklenburg County. 1979.
? 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):Site Photgraphs taken 07.13.07.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supposing scientific literature-
El Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: DWQ Stream Evaluation Forms, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms and
Routine Wetland Determination Forms submitted to USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office on July 24, 2006.
APPENDIX IV:
COPIES OF AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
I
WIT
.
1 . Y_) tit E_ I-T 1 IT
k0"1 (il?? .,
110il:I , 11. 7(}S}
1 ?. 1' tl rici<I lt. Hilly
S A •l , : Inc.
.
S}^''+? .`?Cll.ltlltili ?'1lIC_?C)lllt,'l iI"t
i'1l<li-101112t'`,!i)1"th i al-()li1'• -5500
Dear t! s. KtIly and Ms. Bc'cksi 'om:
tlbj C t. lLC . ssesslllen! tf)l a l l . elS li7 ets Iscmed h_tl1EILcul to 1('ir_.Isiatt / Put u! o
Trouil" ian; in fi-e fell C)iint Non h CamlK
We rucked your lette daicci Janiiarx, 11. 2001 in sl illcil you lcclL CSIC6 OLII C07liiii1CAUS (,tl 1hL'
Subject project. We hn-v - l 'i'1t`G tl tllU I111pt1ll:illS;il V )n prc-sEi tai and are provIS i'i 'flit'
lollov `? CoIliil.lent5 in acco!-C?.'tit_r' :W ith th piti.. 5S7S1.'•IS of iii _1 tsil and Lt%i1S'lli, rtl i.iElS:=il
_cL _ amended ( 16 UT 06E 60 aml mr_tlx)n ofjJ}_ od 1 973. as
proj c ( 4'PE< ?,. a. ??@F A1 MIE'i ' to tii'. trli"r rniaYton i ro itlcd. 'yc)u' C. r( rit is develop 73acre tract Gf hSn? The pnmeny is Ctlrre7lil`} midi t i,'1C)ped Gild is
111"eC1t°I11Li7 Intl
V''()Od iL with an area of open eld5. An tinllail)ed ttil7Ll.tcary lo KS'i-i- Branch flows across Hie
nottlll,i.-sla I section of the pr(),r>_'i`i:`; Your letter spites Tal v(itli client will apply (nt S:i
Ilatiom-, ide peiinil ioI' irllpact4 !tl on-Sill 5trea,rus and 1 -Ctlallt.is; h(-,rN 'C1'Ci`, nt3 Sl)CtiiicS iv eve
inchkied as to the type tike' 1{Knihm of agnak i1l`ip<ir, s_
c edo H 1,..oed Sl ecie-s _w{:cirln to Qt1I r',eoals atitl a rn Imv JI the in.101i11ai on 1)to iS 2t _
no lisicxl species or illili- talhitnlt", occur on tile sitc, l bareitli''•., v,r jelie C One Cji:! ,CiT?till UndC':-
77 y
`4C'LLr7I of L i?• `;C1 are UN K i"1C)?iliCa, t?tJ11?!.Gil1U?25 Under 5.. ..77i 7 of t1lL _iGl rrtl"t he
i eol AdCred if: (1) new ini`oviniaiion rev als imp)"i"cls of this identified action that nay affect
i,sl'w'ti Sj.l;;.'a ?: or C,.I 1til•al l,,ahital tit a ilnicuillel. -not t re icilisl c -i-iside e.{7 (2) ihis ar..tior; is
suhsalumnly modified in a rllaimer flat "as not cctl..lde ct_l in this revie ` . or t 3.l fi nc-1\ "t.tc ics is
i141CLI 01- CI"1llcial habitat i5 duteindnesd ON nay be aflt`?. d b do identined aCti v. r
F07 - IR ,I7L;:= R4 4.'.'. ' ce'o - , P %i"; ct?TIt'Cl I1CC1 Km?l l'rc' a"t;lt) c Gl_x ECl?'C3Ct. and ; lr, 1171rFI , ti:
hapac' Ohs prt>iect %ill have an the unnarned nilitliarG lo Kerr Branch as 11 eU as 1o wolaiinds on
iI .ti *c VS. Any CA aPs A F',! I z Ic:ail
040ndon" de 1't'nnii t rc? :milt rC°(l has your client to iiisl nltnimi-e or aimid iliIms to tile.
aCftiattl' mcnnves locmcd on the prt)i erty hhe iialJonttvitle heink aoplication should colt:,;t i
SN" "l"1ti li,lpaLIS W illltil'{)idable and hors' impan On Ire tiila ,i:lable have been 3i1t31i , -
i. navoidab'1 InWaos t'z ) l l ache rllitiimioi?.
'.candinR to the 404 b)(l) guidelines, no discharge or H Dime iN BY! be pert deed in suvains
o walands if dire is a iit ,t'tiWe <` hmnsive to!b l:)-oposal a sell<l, e that "'ollltl have icss
adverse .. le etC.ST., ?-ern '40 (,T;.!1 23tl.lt}} tl).t..1.?1:L t.j':: Stlt1tri,S t11 :1.;'i `,iiit_b!
iiilpans on th cx?it.nu? i-
,diermitiVe be found tfm! Q H ellilililate or Iliiniirtize impact's. ttl aquatic resources. V1 "c
mon tumid the folloll'Int measures to help minimize p:it leci iMP"'o-IS:
1 . Use grassed maks in place of cwt and gutter and on-Site storm-Nvater
, - ? ? ? 1h at Ii,.F???,ti.n?e-tit. ?? +'.,: b1C?14ii;1!tt?,;:) areas) tl,at Q11 t',siili in sic; net cl]altE_c' in _i?t:
hx droh t of the Natersh d. Vithout pro-per i.ti.lriltl_'. illis, develori.nient Ndill
create. more iilipm`ous sui Races (such as roofs, loads, 'and pi:r in loo ), which
collect ipalou,,ens. inetak stdtniem and chemical pollut?.ints and quickly
11-ansinii tile])) to i, ccit'im., \raters. Them ore, all sloiili•-water oket:s should
drain throu°h a i meth ed ttl:land area prior to reaching any, sti'cani or tv ctlantf
t: -
rire. SHOW W t rc;telltittn deigns AM be irnplenientc.d to alto\l' for the s ov,;
disclmnrgj_'e of stC rni tv atcr.. -Itienuati.?tg" the t i ('Iitllll adverse ef f lets of
SLonn-ti aWr surges: tl]a`i m! spi.l esq and sedimmit, ill icnt. and MAN
tlisch aT`( Gs.
l`i£,sCrb'f at'd/o semm '(?eMed Oparian buffers, F1iien the close prozmrmy or
tllis pixteo to aquatic remnuves and the increased iilTp "t.'IOL1S S?Ii"iaCe area tlla'i
W U il;'a a a result o this d :'clout:neilt., \vc are coiv..t.llled about the loss and
f ' irli!5. PC}mm{f'i"a,rtcl?). bilili_is `{aWi1h`II!.I11o: 100 h:'ei Wt"_'-
lack o 1 pai'm hu
4-
4-
?ll?)t!`? t)c,cillil_tE :,t1+_is .i141 50 G4t }?'ICic _rfC?)i?; lriiU'.t?ttli:3si s ..lrenli,,?" , sl:it.itt?s
mated ter r rniin i cd tl? t'ts .iii ;1C i ilk ,from Riparian (;uffors r51'( vide-
ra e-l corridors and hat-,itat f6r vildlife disl`laced by d;.' ck lmnerIL in rl;it;iti:?m
ripar mi buffers jprofc_'i: SS^{31 'r qLldhy by stabilizing sir+`_nin banks, filtering'
ste=rni 3tt`I n!nt fI`: and providing habitat Or aquatic and fisheries resources.
l.i7slail and rllakn rln stringent niet Sliics to control crosiolt and sediment in
order to lira e'i)t lirlrlC c sa y iinl:,acts lc: aquatic resowres ti0hin and
dovvilsireaIn c-d" tllc prcljcct city Disturbed areas should be 1 eseeded mith scedl
mixtures that: etli:l'reit,.fix'3al i:Ct vi'tlCllifo. i:,4CUC lha,:e:' I:i[htlitcs 3llci?i1ri b!;
aNoide? Naliv ,,innoal `ni -!l ?;tains apipir pric.iitc o the se sm are prC7i._,TUd
and recommended, h.;rililet, r erosion-contl'ol devices shmAd he Artalled prior
to lily on-Lli£._r'm.alil u{%ii:;,1C!S. iCltli:._,f v1-t _,
critical to their I1roper function in order to iniinize sediment disch rrt c fr€ -ni
file project srte,

,.C: UilU?.Lcs I01all I?t-:ilialll iJl l: lraCt 14"ciy lrtOmSIIIt,:a l%a '±t:'vallly and <.:SJI i<1t:,f1
wetlands because they InI Anne inilmas to aquatic resources, allovv 1-01. the
DIOVemcnt Of aquauc orgaIilsms, and ehnibm'te the need to fill and instaH
culverts, All stream crossings should he made perpendicular to the stream. = i
clllt'eNS W the onll option we suggest using bottolnle:Ss culverts. Bottomless
culverts do not need to be huried, thereby Ininimizilng the adverse impacts to
strcarlns. And, type of cul-verl that is used should be dcsigInl d to 211MV far the;
pawage of fish and other atlt{ahc lift. J lie culml should he sited 1G?
ac onmodale the movement of debris and bed material within a channel
during a bank-4`011 event. `1 recolilntend the use of (mtltiple barrels (other
than the llasoflow barrel), 1llnc?d on or near stream banl?--fftlll or floc.}dplaili
hench eic`,.:.tiion in order lo a ccoiil!nt,tl3tr flood awirs vrithii, the sh-cam
corridor. "i hese shmdd be reconnected to floodplain hunches as appropriate.
This'may be al.iconipll;, ed by using sills om tlif Llt., t!u:iill C-WA to reStilC't 10l'
Own flog tc the hose-flow b<irrclts' i. Sufficient water depth should be
inaintained in the h.asc-f1mv Im-ri-el durili` im flag's to accommodate fish
IllovemeilL. if the culvert is longer than 40 linear :feet, a0I?1ritl.n or r tched
baffles ski di he installed in a manner that mimics the e iMing sheam pattm.
11is should enhance the passage o'f aCluatic life b : (a) depositing sediment in
the barrel, Oh) niaintalnillc channel depth and floe rcLi.nies, and (c) providing)
resting lflaces for fish and, ciihcr aquatic organ snlS.
nsiall WAY ]ties (I.e., set "er. `(gas. ,,vator) outside the iii)cvveneconirnel dcd
buffer widthS. AN utility crossings should be kept to a mhd ntlini, and all milit
inka.structure shmTld be kept out of riparian buffer r CIS. 11c direction-al bore
stI ci m-ci ossin,,j inethod (installation of Al:ities beneath theriverbed, avoiding
niil. adS N !lse stICanl and AM) should be used a_,r t t ht°,' v:£;_SiI1p,s,.
Maliho)e or similar access structuies should not be allowed tiTt'lthin binfir
meas. `stream crossings should h near perpel,Cricalal suman flow and
Sl'rfJ d he i1umitored at leas t.zi 'ry 3 ni ntlls For maintenance needs during the
first 4 months of the p.xjeet and a llltuilly thereafter. `ewer lines associated
With crossing areas sNndd be nuhhanled and operated at all times to prevent
dlSeharges to land or surface t'aters. In circumstances where milnnium
setbacks cannot be attained, s ,%ci lines, shall be c;:iI1S1rLIC;ted of dt dile hen or a
substance of c;Clual_ durabiht_4.
6. 5eei-, equipment out ofstrearns by operating froth d he banks in a fashion that
minimizes di stiiiflaIIc to `.Ti oodly egctation` Equipment should, be inspected.
dady and should be maintaizn.Cl 1k) prey ilt. the contarnMon of surnxe "ova,
from leaking bels. lubricants, hvfirattlnc fluids, or Other tclxic rnatl,rials. All
fuels, lubricants, and other toxic i ate' .ills should be stored. outside the ripcal-j'ar,
inanagement area of the suv nl, in a location where the material can be
contained t_quipnle.nt should be checked for leafs: of b),drauhe herds, cooling;
st,som lkpids and fuel and should be cleaned before fording- any st?carj"i.

AtSt; AI 1L_;.•.? q :3i-rCIaLC>i15 st,CllllCi l;c;? .L Itllattail
?iIann ?Glll. ll't l1't i-
viii alternatives analysis confirms that impacts to strean}s and,cdands are unavoidahle, Ii
titlWWI nlitigatiorl plan iusj he IN-ot'ided IS all u ntitiW(Lible inipapts. `sit tgelleral rule, 4A;C,
?"c corrunend that all direct in wis to wetlands and struirns lie inhit?.ated in ith tilc rest:oratioll of'
cornprll"ahle on-Ate sireanis and wetlands at a ratV of at lc, is1 ?: 1 . If an in-gild, on-tine
i}iIt€<Won plan C:aMlOt: h Cstahhshed, We reconlilicnd tic. c t;ati n of an in-kind. off-Sltti
inhig.l ion plan. If all in-kind'. ,,tlI-Se niit:igathAi plai cavviot be provided and ei lilll'& to the
io ih :iroliila E'.C€`SySLMl En_haltcernent f?rclli:all, tiewnic;s necc,ssai v for rniti?ai.ioil of the
PlipactS %we recommend 01t111 lle FeStorafioii ratio of 2:1 he used io calculate jlie p ynlcnt a llotiiit.
'At this sta(ye and ?vifllout more specifics about construction locations or techniqu s, it is dif-ficult
it'i us w dilly assess the l mential crivrt'!: luneil't'it 1Ldhrcct, indirect. sec(midary and
C't. nallad e) of this pnAcct. We therefore reconlillt nd thsl :iris on tit nonciltal doc ullloil pic,p)ared
for this lirt}jec,t include tile (if applicalble):
t'i detailed anadyis of Stream and y 1mid Him areas and locations,
partlcul dy the locations of sf:reaill crossing)S and the cOnSti"LICti( it test-l_i 1CIUCS
proposed or stream crossinIs ti'u'ithill the 13_( tjC t arei. flans for Al p-0.0Sed
impact arras Should inCILlde a col plE:te inalysis aild c'ornpa iscin ol'the
available ConSMIC60171 techniques and alts r-natty es (including a no-build
alto-native).
' n assessment of miy development thAt will impact !ll;:= 100-year floo =1 taill.
Exect:I.tiV( Order l l` 88 requires federal agcnci.es (o there designated
-_
:,:t.?r 1"t?4_!'( IiC,ntri?l??_il rt5 sllctiC.,IS. tvC
t1C?Ilf:edcrai i"e-1rlctiLritatl, t?) to GCinS?ti:i 13
1-,eheye the recent exailiphs Of Wong ill itiorfll C atolitla higfili4 tat tlE=::',
ir.tlllWtun i avoiding direct. allc :ildinc t _inlp ik_is asseciate
occupancy and i:l`..'di. i.cittion of flooCl(Mins. My de t l )j.?illent. that ,'ill !ilpaci
the floodplain will ileed to be assessed.
lremilS of A! smve)o mid asse;Ssnlents, Inclyfing illc acreage and a description
of die i?ve;tlands that W. be :;:riled or iril poed mid talc, extent (lineal [eet as well
Its disclorge) of any wer courses dot WH be inipacted as a result of the
proposed project- !'± dewdptiml of anv, sti- anis should include flnC
c awific ion (€josgen 1995. 1996) and a description ofthe biotic resoui-Ces,
(1 ' any l?e'dands affected t',y the proposed pr?,kTt should b illal-pd in
It_ ., c. ?
CI.+..LilrtLailVt.., Yi ll.l Clte' I L&W rl an(-i !..(:?i

4. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources -within Ctilstiig an,"! re(l.Ii:red
additronai ritgln -of-l; aa% and any areas, such as borrow areas, that imy he
aRlded. Won, it i luiFec ly by the proposed l i-qj ci.
4
,). An assessment 0 11 m l?ected Sr,'({+i}t ?.1_\ n:li(i t i!.LIi ?,.I. C111'i "E%tii 11 C!iiil.! h1l 3acts associated with this proposed wr} f . The assessment should Sped f
the e-xient and QTe of devaloll pmm pr;:ol?t scd Or the ! iJe(i 1 nia once Ow ii"K
r
is complete and glow Itiitli'e Mgrowth will be umiiliain cd and Gltpnorlcd with
i"eis3i'ii to semi" l31i',. <11cC lliii:S, pcii'llilg .ti"t'az w1({ ;il;"t }l.t"'I;CJSe{s iC,i:!Ci`4<r.'
.
A discussion about the c mu to Wch the prcyeot i ill result in the lass,
dficmad Iion.. o ll I4Ji?rCilidtioi' of wilC hlb lip 1"iittii IM m direct construction
iwadn and 3i-orn second 'tl \ de eli>iunent inltmos. The acreage and to tit: n
of ,
of LI1 il.?ttlt li%i`tJilCt. t'i't cover i1'?j)e, that 4`:'II t,G A11i.1:!.atei1 1`7'i-;catii~e of I.,:
proposed pi"{ ect must he noted,
!. N4itit?auon rn isn.res that v;`ill be empkjcd to ct t) d, c iminate. rt_U1?. c'. O
:;c`rnpcii` me (Oi' 17:i1.°,W l'tilue losSl s (wluid. ! rt E'1'inn and ltpi rid i iit:t
with am E1h.-ISC o ttle -piroposed j?i ?j("Ct.
V\."C al}l)rcciate the c,111J{'.:itiii Ay to provide tbe.sc el,l'aunwik(i call be t3! as ist;lncc nr if you
ha``'; w q: please do not hesitate to contact -Ml3'. R 1o ? 037 Akins of our staff al
;_ - e x,,S;? mil5;53 >(1J9 1_x nt. 24fi?
t7, In any illillic cOi,l-CSl"ioilClcilCG c??i!c`i?11!l:l? kllrs ih!3jL4"-'t, 11!cawc ie:t _ti:iiCe
0111- Log INLH-nber 4-2-07--l 10.
`?ilt[erel? ,
Brian P. Cole
Field up iS(i'::
t
5
Jortil Carolina !._%Evparlif'ien o &1V1IilE: i t a. td Natural E fe-so urces
'Easley. Governor ;''1±NAm i Ras Jr , Se!; tar},

W. '..ill ON K Kell)
ti,?'`:1E,. Inc.
51-51 S(Iinhern Pins_ Boul?!vmd
i . ii• . NC 282715500
Meet: Propt?sc%d AN N Cl opinum o apprmilnalciS >„j ,1CC£ 1 1:1 :I: t CC>UIIii IIi- li"e(it'li ? C`IIIIiA'
War Nis. {lelh''. 11'C Natural 1Eerltage Program liar in, record GE rare species signil'icant natural Cc'!',iniu ?Tim ar
u?igmt-jtant natural hernaL)e arcas it the site nor «Wri a mile of the PQeci area. Altholl'?h our snaps do
lilt bho" records of wueh rimuml 11e1'lage elemems Iti the prr?1ect: area. It does not nece5tiarily mean tha t
thw are not present. It mmN simpl) mean that the awa hm not heed sumeyed. le use of Namn-al
f lair I`>e Program data shotod mm he suss red for mural field surveys.. particul ih IN ic': protect area
r?Ili ?IIIS suitable WWI 4 sure species, signincant natinyl C`f???1 ininhies, or priori, natural rheas.
5 on Hmv "Kh to :heck the ,mull I{el'lt ge Program dambase bVekke at 441Cvv.lliHhp.(w Qr a 11.5tIng of
ruc ;Arms and ank-ials and si 'n lcmn natural connnund S in Me C;Cmnq and on ,{le llnW nlap_
N ( )neNlap no" pI aides dighal 'natural Heritage data online for {see. This service provides site
sp-cihc lrilornimian on (NS i llm t0'!th `AtUnd {-lei it gC Prt !gNIH1 rare Species ilCCUj-1 nCCS and
Significant Natural {lerh g)e Areas. The 'I(. One1Q 1'A im prtnides E lelnem Acurenm (I_()) {I)
numbers (instead of speoi urine). and the data user is then encouraged t.0 contact the Natural Heritage
P ` mn? lb doalled HiForrnaii { his lien ice allows tiic rl..er R) quRTly and ef'ficSc.nd) 'et Slte speclflc
LHP dma "U ma i ishkif the "d W N1t7r50om of "aANg 101 ?;)c Iniormation kequest to he answered by
i ip mar f, 1 or ni{)le inforniaii )n Ihoul data formats and acc ti _. 1'i`<it `=\1't1?t.;1<'+'._11f r!? tp. Uf:?%C{ lis?.htIlll '.
?i _.' all t' t)11e?Vc?t.) at: ti?r?tc°(1 IP.C:nI?It 1?ct->.
Pl atie do not lies hate to contact !Tic:' at 19- 7 15-869 %' if ou 1mvt tue,f ions or tir'e'd further infurlnation.
Sincerck
:. 'cG 1ii(1, .JI d.
o ?;1st
ti,} 1 I..
'16011 Mail Service Center. Ralell, h!o th Carolina 27699-160,11 One Nord"Warolina
Phone 0,19-733-4984 ? CAX 9,101-7 15-3060 ; Irternel vim. ens stale nc,us!Ef\lR!
._... .Il ti AMA* ....ion Ell.tihY4.-.,0 % 4.ira. 1 .. /. m

4 -
r
??C??.?<i,I ?.:=C t of ?,f?E?_€.€.sFi R: `yoib C`i
S` 1; lc I Jisitit'Ic ic` erA ati?on Office
MACK A. QT?
War Nis, QW:
t'
TWA von W the ,-
in km -),.? .,, •.?._ pp l\ Atk i in .l t Ll ..,_,. ,l.l,. t...?ad h_ ,.! z .. 1 ." , cp't nr, IE-1. X m,
.=i',.
.. j .. .,.t. 1" 3; 4
i)i_:'7..(:.: on 1
.. .11:'t?
'
;'
C C'S1
I
CCi
t
v
. .
.
.
_...
1
..,
,
'..
t . lm:,d ,!..tr i_i l, <.. it ,t r
i it-c
wul >
ic
TKQ% 'Tf,
ti
S
„
.,_
,
p
t ..,, .
._7
,.
.
10.. tiiC. t ptt._ha cli WK and , , t.,t,. A '-. u;isctn_ic i,

rcl ; Iog0
!,• „r
1P, t,ria .'I(I nitt r`-t I t ;,I it
..,., i.-.li C ._ ..• i
n.. C71 .LC ,'C:SIr 1ti: n,,+r,i`t i;;i ,'i'Iy ?llT ... :: ij
?.
. ... '? ?lC t r
>r" - .._U , .- i :A`.?L. F.s. ?' ,.ti ._ ,C?%?C _{'1L ,_1C1 i_i??,•_ - 1_ ..f'?.1 .. ..
z

by ! i oI,,..mD>U s ,.s whY 11,1=z f:Mt?t ,. (1 rJl" t ,I ?t:ac d knows lIl t (?I1 _ti,c ,r_':' in Wfig l,.S,t 10 `_::
?.7tiil ? , i a- . Won ?
....,., "1'
. i lr? Ii'° 1 IA;iCI>f(,ici5 I ,(S:i or a .hC_ t qwricanAd
i r.a I)( ii,,,. [. d lit CCIU?]1, hkQ survc
,,.,i., is `'ttt IR' _i W6 W he TWO & Tf N on P ..(TV..W.i '..._.i' ti.(' .. !: t_
a

_,. vot ..t; aid considtanuhms. J Quo .?.,,i ul c . 11,_ oi'
i_t. .. ._ pj;C p.L.:SC Ct., it , .''°S"Ctt?'U ,ul?i. , ,.o'. _.
. >i
'7 iC ^I_II
1 •" ?3. , ,.tu -
N ISTTRATtOi n
liitniIoTy: .... i(
NANG
APPENDIX V:
CULTURAL RESOURCES LITERATURE REVIEW
AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
S&ME
July 27, 2007
Chivas Retail Partners, LLC
5635 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 150
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Attention: Mr. Tim Dollander
FILE COPY
Reference: Cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance
Survey of 73± Acres at the Troutman Tract
Iredell County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-07-030
Dear Mr. Dollander:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME), on behalf of Chivas Retail Partners, LLC, has completed a cultural resources
literature review and reconnaissance survey of a 73f-acre tract located between I-77 and Highway 21
near the Town of Troutman in Iredell County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The goals of the survey were to
assess the area's potential for containing significant cultural resources, and to make recommendations
regarding additional work that may be required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, as amended. This work was carried out in general accordance with S&ME Proposal Number 1357-
18277-07 rev., dated July 27, 2007.
The project area is located just south of Exit 42 along 1-77, approximately 1.9 miles southeast of the
Town of Troutman. The tract is bounded by Highway 21 to the east, 1-77 to the west, and Exit 42 to the
north; surveyed property lines form the southern boundary (Figure 1). There is a large truck stop/gas
station to the northeast and a mobile home sales center to the east (Figure 2). There are also several
homes along Highway 21 to the east. The closest water source is a small, unnamed tributary of Kerr
Branch that flows though the center of the project tract (Figure 1). Vegetation in the undeveloped portions
of the tract consists almost entirely of pasture (Figure 3).
The project area is located in the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina, which contains gently
to moderately sloping hills that are dissected by streams and rivers. Elevation in the project area ranges
from approximately 850 to 920 ft. above mean sea level (AMSL). In the undeveloped western half of the
property topography is moderately sloped (Figures 2 and 3). The majority of the eastern half of the tract
has been graded and filled and contains portions of a truck stop, a mobile home sales center, and a
telecommunications tower. The area surrounding the tract contains mostly residential and commercial
properties.
SWE, INC. / 134 Suber Road / Columbia, SC 29210 / p 803.561.9024 / 803.561.9177 / www.smeinc.com
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey S&tviE Project No. 1357-07-030
Troutman Tract, Iredell County, NC July 27, 2007
Background Research
On July 24, 2007, a background literature review and records search was conducted at the North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and at the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
in Raleigh. The records examined at SHPO included a review of National Register and survey files for
properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Records examined at OSA included
master archaeological site maps, state archaeological site files, and associated archaeological reports. The
area examined was a 0.5-mile radius around the project tract.
A review of the files and records at SHPO and OSA indicated there were no previously recorded
archaeological sites or aboveground historic resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project tract.
Field Methods
On July 26, 2007, a cultural resources reconnaissance survey was conducted of the proposed project area.
Principal Archaeologist William Green, M.A., RPA, conducted the survey. The survey was conducted
primarily by excavating shovel tests at selected locations across the project area, and was supplemented
by a pedestrian survey in areas with good ground surface exposure (Figure 4). Shovel tests were at least
30 cm in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil. Soil was screened through 0.25-inch hardware mesh,
and artifacts, if recovered, were bagged according to provenience. Notes were kept in a field journal and
on S&ME site forms.
In addition to the archaeological survey, a limited architectural resource reconnaissance was conducted to
determine whether the proposed project would affect any aboveground National Register listed or eligible
properties. Accessible public roads within and adjacent to the project area were driven. Historic
structures, if encountered, were photographed using high quality (i.e., four megapixel or higher
resolution) digital images. Photographs were also taken from the historic structure toward the project area
to help assess possible visual effects caused by the undertaking.
Results
Archaeological Survey
Eighteen shovel tests, all approximately 10 cm deep, were excavated across the project area. Soil was
uniformly eroded across the entire tract and a typical soil profile consisted of red (2.5YR 4/8) loamy clay
subsoil at or just below the surface (Figure 5). No artifacts were found in any of the shovel tests or on the
ground surface.
Architectural Survey
A limited architectural resource reconnaissance was conducted to determine whether the proposed project
would affect any aboveground historic properties. Accessible public roads within and adjacent to the
project area were driven, and existing aboveground structures greater than 50 years old were examined for
2
It V
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey S&1viE Project No. 1357-07-030
Troutman Tract, Iredell County, NC July 27, 2007
National Register eligibility. There were no historic structures noted during the architectural
reconnaissance.
Conclusion
The archaeological reconnaissance survey conducted by S&ME did not encounter any archaeological
sites within the project tract. The survey also determined that the project area has a very low potential for
containing significant archaeological sites due to severe erosion, moderately steep slopes, and prior
disturbance in the eastern portion of the project area. The architectural reconnaissance did not record any
aboveground historic properties within or adjacent to the project area. Based on these results, S&ME
recommends that no additional cultural resource investigations should be necessary for the project tract.
Closing
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to have provided you with these cultural resource services. If you
have questions about the report, or need additional services, please do not hesitate to contact Bill Green at
[phone] or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
William Green, M.A., RPA
Principal Archaeologist
-Tw &k4t
Thomas Behnke
Senior Reviewer (-
3

•"` r e? r r'^-a_r`.??, tom'-
,r„ ` -?. t - "''tom -, _.. L L•„ _.. -.
? t
t f ; `h __•
illy
rte, ' `' r l? -
•7 ?{ t
y ..++.' A p „ry 4
r
r w 1 S ? I/ `?
?A? 1r1 ?.- f ?:r 1` t` ?l [\l'`• t,?..t? //'- '`-? ,/? .
Figure 1. Troutman project area.
Base Map: Sheperds, NC 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle.
Project Area
0.5-mile search radius

e .4
t4 q 4. •? ? v i (f
'wit • '
tin
J I? a- /7 I r ??? ' i
li t-
I V
%
;? 1 R
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
N
W+E
S
ME
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey
Troutman Tract, Iredell County, NC
S&Iv_- Project No. 1357-07-030
July 27, 2007
Figure 2. View toward the eastern portion of the project area, facing northeast.
Figure 3. Vegetation and topography in the project area, facing west.
I Op
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey
Troutman Tract, Iredell County, NC
S&N,.-? Project No. 1357-07-030
July 27, 2007
Figure 4. Small area with good ground surface visibility, facing southwest.
Figure 5. Eroded cutbank along the southern boundary of the project area, facing south.
6
. , ? v
APPENDIX V1:
COPY OF EEP ACCEPTANCE LETTER
• IF ? r
Tim Dollander
Chivas Retail Partners
5635 N. Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Project: Troutman Towne Center
!,enstem.l.
'?I
PROGRAM
August 13, 2009
Expiration of Acceptance: May 13, 2010
County: Iredell
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment 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 comolV"with all other state.. fed: eral.or local
This acceptance is valid for nine 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 the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer 11
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Yadkin 03040101 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0
Credits Yadkin 03040101 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchener at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Chapin, USACE-Asheville
Alan Johnson, NCDWQ-Mooresville
Joev Lawler, agent
File
RestD?r; ... F ... Prot" Our Rat&
e* JA
RC E- R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1919-715-0476 /www.nceep.net