The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200852 Ver 1_401 Application_20200626Staff Review Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?* r Yes r No ID#* 20200852 Version* 1 Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes r No Reviewer List:* Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1 Select Reviewing Office:* Mooresville Regional Office - (704) 663-1699 Submittal Type:* 401 Application Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?* r Yes r No How much is r $240.00 owed?* r $570.00 Project Submittal Form Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all mandatory questions are answered. Project Type:* r New Project r New Project Existing ID r Pre -Application Submittal r More Information Response r Other Agency Comments r Stream or Buffer Appeal r For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy) New Project - Please check the new project type if you are trying to submit a new project that needs an official approval decision. Pre -Application Submittal - Please check the pre -application submittal if you just want feedback on your submittal and do not have the expectation that your submittal will be considered a complete application requiring a formal decision. More Information Response - Please check this type if you are responding to a request for information from staff and you have and ID# and version for this response. Other Agency Comments - Please check this if you are submitting comments on an existing project. Project Contact Information Name: Aliisa Harjuniemi who is subnitting the inforrration? Email Address: aliisa@cws-inc.net Project Information Project Name: Simpson Farms Is this a public transportation project? r Yes r No Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? r Yes r No r Unknown County (ies) Union Please upload all files that need to be submited. Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document 2018-0055.Simpson Farms.6.26.20.NPW29.pdf 8.61MB Only pdf or Iv17 files are accepted. Describe the attachments or comments: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29 Sign and Submit V By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that: o I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form; • I agree that submission of this form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act") • I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act'); • I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND • I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form." Signature: e�vrrTrTfiilrrtrr. Submittal Date: Is filled in autorratically. Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions SAW – 201 Ͳ BEGIN DATE [Received Date]: Prepare file folder Assign Action ID Number in ORM 1.Project Name [PCN FŽƌm A2a]: 2.Work Type: Private Institutional Government Commercial 3.Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]: 4.Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: 5.Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 – or ORM Consultant ID Number]: 6.Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]: 7.Project Location - Coordinates͕^ƚƌĞĞƚĚĚƌĞƐƐ͕ĂŶĚͬŽƌ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ[PCN Form B1b]: 8.Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]: 9.Project Location – County [PCN Form A2b]: 10.Project Location – Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: 11.Project Information – Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]: ϭϮ͘tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚͬϴͲŝŐŝƚ,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐhŶŝƚŽĚĞ΀WE&ŽƌŵϮĐ΁͗ Authorization: Section 10 Section 404 Section 10 & 404 Regulatory Action Type: Standard Permit Nationwide Permit # Regional General Permit # Jurisdictional Determination Request Pre-Application Request Unauthorized ĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ Compliance EŽWĞƌŵŝƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ Revised 20150602 Simpson Farms ✔ The purpose of the project is to develop the property into a single-family subdivision. BRD Land and Investments 1, LP; POC: Kevin Burrell CWS; POC: Ms. Aliisa Harjuniemi SAW-2020-00427 1000-1198 Fowler Rd Monroe, NC 28110 (35.032871°, -80.560389°) 09213017B and 09213017C Union Monroe Stewarts Creek 03040105 ✔ ✔29 CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. 550 E. Westinghouse Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28273 704-527-1177(office) 704-527-1133 (fax) To: Mr. Bryan Roden -Reynolds Date: June 26, 2020 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charlotte Regulatory Field Office 8430 University Executive Park Drive Charlotte, NC 28262 Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29 Simpson Farms Monroe, North Carolina CWS Project No. 2018-0055 Dear Mr. Roden -Reynolds, The Simpson Farms site is approximately 71 acres in extent and is located northeast and southeast of the Secrest Shortcut Road and Fowler Road intersection in Monroe, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2, Attachment A). BRD Land and Investments 1 has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. An executed Agent Authorization Form is attached (Attachment B). CWS is submitting a Pre -Construction Notification pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for proposed permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. associated with developing the property for a single-family residential subdivision. A copy of the PCN application is being provided to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) with a check of $240 for the 401 Water Quality Certification approval fee. ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED: DESCRIPTION Attachment A - Figures 1-7 Attachment B - Agent Authorization Form Attachment C - Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination SAW-2020-00427 Attachment D - Proposed Impacts Attachment E - Protected Species Assessment Attachment F - ILF Acceptance Letter Attachment G - NC WAM Form Please do not hesitate to contact Aliisa Harjuniemi at 980-259-1222 or aliisa@cws-inc.net should you have any questions or comments regarding this request. Sincerely, Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS Senior Project Manager Page 1 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 Office Use Only: Corps action ID no. DWQ project no. Form Version 1.4 January 2009 Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form A. Applicant Information 1. Processing 1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ☒ Section 404 Permit ☐ Section 10 Permit 1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 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 1e. 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 1g. 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: Simpson Farms 2b. County: Union 2c. Nearest municipality / town: Monroe 2d. Subdivision name: N/A 2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: 3. Owner Information 3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: BRD Land and Investments 1, LP; POC: Mr. Kevin Burrell 3b. Deed Book and Page No. 7439 132 3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable): 3d. Street address: 725 CHERRY RD STE 3234 3e. City, state, zip: Rock Hill, SC 29732 3f. Telephone no.: 803‐325‐1925 3g. Fax no.: N/A 3h. Email address: Kevin@brdevelop.com Page 2 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 4. Applicant Information (if different from owner) 4a. Applicant is: ☐ Agent ☐ Other 4b. Name: 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: Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS 5b. Business name (if applicable): Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. 5c. Street address: 550 E. Westinghouse Blvd. 5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28273 5e. Telephone no.: 980‐259‐1222 5f. Fax no.: N/A 5g. Email address: aliisa@cws‐inc.net Page 3 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 B. Project Information and Prior Project History 1. Property Identification 1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 09213017B and 09213017C 1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.032871 ° Longitude: - -80.560389 ° 1c. Property size: 71 acres 2. Surface Waters 2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project: Stewarts Creek 2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS‐III 2c. River basin: Yadkin (HUC 03040105) 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 unmaintained open fields and undeveloped forested areas. There are four farm structures located within the property that do not appear to be currently in use. Land cover within the project area consists of developed (open space), deciduous forest, and mixed forest (Figure 3). The surrounding land use consists of single-family residential areas, church, agricultural field, and undeveloped forested areas. CWS reviewed the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map (Figure 2) and determined on-site elevations range from 530-590 feet above mean sea level. Drainage on the site is from west to east towards the East Fork Stewarts Creek. The E Fork of Stewarts Creek is depicted as flowing along the eastern project limits; flow direction is from north to south, toward the Stewarts Creek, which flows along the southern project limits. According to the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web Soil Survey of Union County (Figure 4) and the NRCS Soil Survey for Union County (Figure 5), on-site soils consist of seven different soil types (Table 1). Of the on-site soils, one (Chewacla silt loam) is listed on the Web Soil Survey as containing hydric inclusions. National Wetlands Inventory GIS layer depicts a linear freshwater forested/shrub wetland along the eastern property boundary (Figure 6). There are six jurisdictional waters of the U.S. located within the project boundary. These waters consist of two jurisdictional wetlands (Wetlands AA and BB) and four jurisdictional stream channels (Streams A-D). On-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are depicted in Figure 7. 3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.26 ac. 3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 2,582 linear feet of perennial stream, 495 linear feet of intermittent stream 3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: The purpose of this project is to develop the property into single-family residential subdivision. This project will provide residential housing for Monroe to meet the growing demand for housing due to population growth in Union County. Page 4 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project proposed developing the site for single-family residential subdivision. Under NWP No. 29, proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with this project total 0.11 acre of jurisdictional wetland. The proposed site plan and impacts are depicted in Attachment D. The fill for road and lots will result in 0.11 acre of permanent impact to Wetland AA (W1). Please the avoidance and minimization section for more details. Typical construction equipment such as excavators, track hoes, and bulldozers will be used to construct this development. Page 5 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 4. Jurisdictional Determinations 4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / project (including all prior phases) in the ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown Comments: 4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? ☒ Preliminary ☐ Final 4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Name (if known): Agency/Consultant Company: Other: CWS 4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, dated June 2, 2020 is included as Attachment C (SAW-2020-00427). 5. Project History 5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in ? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown 5b. If yes, explain in detail according to “help file” instructions. 6. Future Project Plans 6a. Is this a phased project? ☐ Yes ☒ No 6b. If yes, explain. Page 6 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 C. Proposed Impacts Inventory 1. Impacts Summary 1a. 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. Wetland impact number Permanent (P) or Temporary (T) 2b. Type of impact 2c. Type of wetland 2d. Forested 2e. Type of jurisdiction Corps (404,10) or DWQ (401, other) 2f. Area of impact (acres) W1 P Fill Headwater Forest Yes 404 0.11 2g. Total Wetland Impacts: 0.11 ac. 2h. Comments: Proposed permanent wetland impacts total 0.11 ac. 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. Stream impact number Permanent (P) or Temporary (T) 3b. Type of impact 3c. Stream name 3d. Perennial (PER) or intermittent (INT)? 3e. Type of jurisdiction 3f. Average stream width (feet) 3g. Impact length (linear feet) 3h. Total stream and tributary impacts Page 7 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 3i. Comments: Page 8 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 4. Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below. 4a. Open water impact number Permanent (P) or Temporary (T) 4b. Name of waterbody (if applicable 4c. Type of impact 4d. Waterbody type 4e. Area of impact (acres) O1 ‐ Choose One Choose O2 ‐ Choose One Choose O3 ‐ Choose One Choose O4 ‐ Choose One Choose 4f. Total open water impacts 4g. Comments: 5. Pond or Lake Construction If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below. 5a. Pond ID number 5b. Proposed use or purpose of pond 5c. Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d. Stream Impacts (feet) 5e. Upland (acres) Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated P1 Choose One P2 Choose One 5f. Total: 5g. Comments: 5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, permit ID no: 5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): 5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): 5k. Method of construction: 6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form. 6a. Project is in which protected basin? ☐ Neuse ☐ Tar-Pamlico ☐ Catawba ☐ Randleman ☐ Other: 6b. Buffer Impact number – Permanent (P) or Temporary (T) 6c. Reason for impact 6d. Stream name 6e. Buffer mitigation required? 6f. Zone 1 impact (square feet) 6g. Zone 2 impact (square feet) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Page 9 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 B6 ‐ Yes/No 6h. Total Buffer Impacts: 6i. Comments: Page 10 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 D. Impact Justification and Mitigation 1. Avoidance and Minimization 1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project. To avoid and minimize impact to jurisdictional waters of the US, the site was delineated prior to finalizing the site plan and the proposed site plan was designed around the delineation results. Approximately 3,077 linear feet of on-site stream channel and 0.15 acres of wetland were avoided through site design. The proposed impacts have been limited to 0.11 acre of low-quality wetland (NC WAM score low, Attachment G). No stream impacts are proposed for this project. The proposed Peach Cobbler Street is routed between an existing cemetery and the delineated Wetland AA. The road is necessary to provide access to the proposed BMP along the eastern edge of the property, between Wetland AA and Stream C (East Fork Stewart’s Creek). Removing the road to a point where it would not impact the verified wetland would also eliminate approximately 20 lots and put the economic feasibility of the project in jeopardy. Project Alternatives Several options were analyzed to reduce the wetland impact while keeping Peach Cobbler Street in place to serve the BMP and provide lot access:  Project engineers looked at removing Lot 85 where the widest area of wetland occurs but the proposed grading in this area is much higher than existing in order to achieve proper drainage from this vicinity of the site toward the BMP. The engineers determined it was not possible to keep existing grades at Wetland AA in the area of Lot 85 while obtaining positive drainage for this area of the site plan.  Engineers looked at removing Lots 85, 86, and 87 from the site plan. Similar to the previous scenario, it presents a drainage issue for this portion of the site. A separate storm drain would have to be installed to tie in to the nearest deepest structure, or lower the entire run of storm sewer that is closest to this location.  Relocating the road alignment to the south to avoid the wetland impact was considered, but there is not enough room to place the road between the wetland and the cemetery without impacting the cemetery.  Adding a retaining wall on the north side of Peach Cobbler Street was considered. This would have removed an insignificant amount of wetland impact (0.002 ac). Additionally, the retaining wall would have been a significant expense. 1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Silt fence will be installed around the jurisdictional features, outside of the avoided wetlands and streams. Construction activities and impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 4139. All work will be constructed in the dry and all temporary fill will be removed following the work. 2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State Page 11 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ☐ DWQ ☒ Corps 2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ☐ Mitigation bank ☒ Payment to in-lieu fee program ☐ Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: 3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose One Type: Choose One Type: Choose One Quantity: Quantity: Quantity: 3c. Comments: 4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program 4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ☒ Yes 4b. Stream mitigation requested: 0 4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: Choose 4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet 4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres 4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0.11 acres 4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres 4h. Comments: Compensatory mitigation is proposed at 1.5:1 ratio. The NC WAM form is included as Attachment F. 5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan. 6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) – required by DWQ 6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation? ☐ Yes ☐ No 6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the amount of mitigation required. Page 12 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 Zone 6c. Reason for impact 6d. Total impact (square feet) Multiplier 6e. Required mitigation (square feet) Zone 1 Zone 2 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 13 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ) 1. Diffuse Flow Plan 1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? ☐ Yes ☒ No 1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why. ☐ Yes ☒ No 2. Stormwater Management Plan 2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? >24% 2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ☒ Yes ☐No 2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: 2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan: The stormwater management plan will be reviewed by City of Monroe. 2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? City of Monroe 3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review 3a. In which local government’s jurisdiction is this project? 3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs apply (check all that apply): ☒ Phase II ☐ NSW ☐ USMP ☒ Water Supply Watershed ☐ Other: 3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been attached? ☐ Yes ☒ No 4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review 4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply (check all that apply): ☐ Coastal counties ☐ HQW ☐ ORW ☐ Session Law 2006-246 ☐ Other: 4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been attached? ☐ Yes ☒ No 5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review Page 14 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 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 15 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 F. Supplementary Information 1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement) 1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land? ☐ Yes ☒ No 1b. 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 (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? ☐ Yes ☐ No 1c. If you answered “yes” to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.) Comments: ☐ Yes ☐ No 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, or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? ☐ Yes ☒ No 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 additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ☐ Yes ☒ No 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. 4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement) 4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility. The sewerlines will tie to the existing infrastructure in the southern portion of the property. Page 16 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) 5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat? ☒ Yes ☐ No 5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts? ☐ Yes ☒ No 5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ‐ 5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? Protected Species Assessment Report is included as Attachment E. 6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ☐ Yes ☒ No 6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? NOAA Fisheries: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html 7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement) 7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)? ☒ Yes ☐ No 7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June 24, 2020 to determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service and found no historical structures, buildings, sites, or districts within the project limits. There is a cemetery located along the Fowler Road (PID: 09-213-017D). Please see the Attachment D for the location of the cemetery. As of date this submittal, no response has been received from the SHPO. 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ☒ Yes ☐ No 8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: .The project proposes no aboveground fill. Page 17 of 17 PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009 8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM No. 3710543700J Ms. Aliisa Harjuniemi Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.) 6.26.20 Date Simpson Farms Attachments June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0056 ATTACHMENT A: Figures 1-7 FIGURE NO.SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: Vicinity Map 1 of 7 I 5,000 0 5,0002,500 Feet CAG 2018-0055 AVH Legend Project Limits (69 ac.) Simpson Farms Union County Monroe, North Carolina 8/27/20181 inch = 5,000 feet G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0055 Simpson Farms\JD\ArcGIS\Figure1_Vicinity.mxd 35.033347, -80.560735 Georgia South Carolina West Virginia Kentucky North Carolina Tennessee Virginia State Location Extent REFERENCE: BACKGROUND VICINITY MAP PROVIDED BY ESRI, 2018. (71 ac.) FIGURE NO.SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: USGS Topographic Map 2 of 7 I 2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet CAG 2018-0055 AVH Legend Project Limits (69 ac.) Simpson Farms Union County Monroe, North Carolina 8/27/20181 inch = 2,000 feet G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0055 Simpson Farms\JD\ArcGIS\Figure2_USGS.mxd REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): BAKERS, NC (2017). 35.033347, -80.560735 (71 ac.) FIGURE NO.SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: FOWLER RD SECREST SHORT CUT RDWALLA C E R D MO N R O E E X P R E S SW A Y BACK RDCOURTNEY STORE RD Aerial Imagery 3 of 7 I 400 0 400200 Feet CAG 2018-0055 AVH Legend Project Limits (69 ac.) Roads Tax Parcels Simpson Farms Union County Monroe, North Carolina 8/27/20181 inch = 400 feet G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0055 Simpson Farms\JD\ArcGIS\Figure3_Aerial Map.mxd 35.033347, -80.560735 REFERENCE: BACKGROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY NCONE MAP, DATED 2016. BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2016. (71 ac.) FIGURE NO.SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES:RIDGE RDSECREST SHORT CUT RDM O N R O E E X P R E S SW A Y FOWLE R R D ROANO K E C H U R C H R D CONCORD HWYPOPLIN RDMAPLE H ILL RD PRICE DAIRY RD H W Y 7 4 ROLLING HILLS DRR O O S E V E L T B L V DARNOLD DRCARROLL ST FOX H U N T D R ROLAND DRFOWLER SECREST RDBARBEE FAR M DR EM ILY L N WINDMERE DRMANCHESTER AVSAVANNAH WAY KING A RT H U R D R DUNCAN KEZIAH RDDAI R Y F AR M D R WALLA C E R D PEBB L E D R BACK R D HU N T C L U B A V BONANZA RDKIMBERLY DRJAMES T O W NE D RHILTON MEADOW DR FOX D E N D RTELEFAIR LNBROADVIEW DRM O N R O E W A Y AVONDALE LN CREE K W O O D DR MEADO WOOD DRHILLCREST DRLAN C E L O T D R BARBEE CTHEATH E R L N MILKFARM C TGRIFFIN CIRSILO CT H W Y 7 4 CmB BuB ChA TbB2 BaB BaB CmB TaB TaB BdB2 TbB2 CmB BdC2 BdB2 Ud TbB2 CnB BaB BdB2 TbB2 BdB2 TaB BdB2 BdB2 BuB BdB2 BdB2 ScA BdB2 TbB2 TbB2 TaB CmB TbB2 BaC BdB2 BdB2 MhA BaB BaC BuB BdB2 BdB2 BuB BaB BaC BdB2 BdB2 CmB BaB TaB BdC2 BdB2 BaB W GsB BuB BuB TbB2 TbB2 CmB TbB2 BdB2 TaB MhA GsB TbB2 BaB BdB2 BdB2 BaB BaB BdB2 TaB TuB ScA TbB2 TbB2 BdB2 BaC TbB2 BdB2 W BdB2 W BaB CmB BdB2 BaB W TbB2 CmB Ud BaB CmB BaC GsC BuB BaC BdC2 BdC2 BaC BaB BaC BaC BdB2 CmB CmB BdB2 BaB CmB ScA ScA BdB2 CmB BaC MhA BuB BdC2 W BdC2 W BdC2 GoC BaB W W W CmB CmB BaB CmB W BaB W W W W BaB BdB2 BaC W CmB BaB BaB BaB W CmB BdB2 BdB2 BuB USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey of Union County 4 of 7 I 2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet CAG 2018-0055 AVH Legend Project Limits (69 ac.) Roads Simpson Farms Union County Monroe, North Carolina 8/27/20181 inch = 2,000 feet G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0055 Simpson Farms\JD\ArcGIS\Figure4_CurrentSoil.mxd 35.033347, -80.560735 REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF UNION COUNTY, NC, DATED 2017. Soil Unit Name and Description Hydric Coverage (%) BaC—Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 13.5 BdB2—Badin channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded No 55.7 ChA—Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Yes 12.9 CmB—Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes No 1.4 ScA—Secrest-Cid complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes No 0 TaB—Tarrus gravelly silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 16.4 TbB2—Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded No 0 100%Total Coverage: (71 ac.) FIGURE NO.SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: USDA-NRCS Historic Soil Survey of Union County 5 of 7 I 2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet CAG 2018-0055 AVH Legend Project Limits (69 ac.) Simpson Farms Union County Monroe, North Carolina Secrest Short Cut Fowler Road 8/29/20181 inch = 2,000 feet G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0055 Simpson Farms\JD\ArcGIS\Figure5_HistoricSoil.mxd REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF UNION COUNTY, NC, SHEET 13 AND 18, DATED 1996. 35.033347, -80.560735 Soil Unit Name and Description Hydric Coverage (%) BaC—Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 13.5 BdB2—Badin channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded No 55.7 ChA—Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Yes 12.9 CmB—Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes No 1.4 ScA—Secrest-Cid complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes No 0 TaB—Tarrus gravelly silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 16.4 TbB2—Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, mo derately eroded No 0 100%Total Coverage: (71 ac.) FIGURE NO.SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: FO WLER R DSECREST SHORT CUT RDMO N R O E E X P R E S SW A Y PRIC E D AI R Y R D ROLLING HILLS DREMILY L N BARBEE FARM DRMANCHESTER AVDAI R Y F A R M D R W ALLACE RD ROAN O K E C H U R C H R D BACK R D JAMES T O WNE D RCOBBLESTONE PKWYHILTON MEADOW DRLONGPOND LNMAPLE H I L L RDAVONDALE LN MILKW OOD LNABINGDON AVHEATH DAVIS RDHEATH E R L N D A I R YWOO D L N MILKFARM C T BU T T E R M I L K L NGRIFFIN CIRSILO CTDOGWOOD CIRWAGON WHEEL CTGRIMKE RD BRAWINA L CT National Wetland Inventory 6 of 7 I 1,000 0 1,000500 Feet CAG 2018-0055 AVH Legend Project Limits (69 ac.) Roads NWI Wetland Type Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Simpson Farms Union County Monroe, North Carolina 8/27/20181 inch = 1,000 feet G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0055 Simpson Farms\JD\ArcGIS\Figure6_NWI.mxd 35.03347, -80.560735 REFERENCE: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY DATA PROVIDED BY UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR NORTH CAROLINA, ACCESSED 2017. BACKGROUND LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2017. (71 ac.) FIGURE NO.SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: 550 570 530 590 5505 3 0 570570570590590570590 5 9 0 FOWLER RD SECREST SHORT CUT RD M O N R O E E X P R E S SW A Y WALLA C E R D BACK R D ROLLING HILLS DRCOURTNEY STORE RD KENT CT GRIMKE R D Jurisdictional Boundaries 7 of 7 I 500 0 500250 Feet GCA 2018-0055 AVH Legend Project Limits (69 ac.) Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream Wetlands Culvert Roads Tax Parcels !DP Data Point #SCP Stream Classification Point ,Indicates Flow !Í Photo Location and Direction Simpson Farms Union County Monroe, North Carolina 5/28/20201 inch = 500 feet G:\Shared drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0055 Simpson Farms\JD\ArcGIS\Figure7_JD_rev5.28.20.mxd REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2017. NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND MAPPED USING A SUB-FOOT CAPABLE GPS UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON AUGUST 27, 2018. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WERE FIELD BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE ON MAY 28, 2020 (SAW-2020-00427). 35.033347, -80.560735 DP1DP2 # SCP1 DP3 I 1 inch = 150 feet I 1 inch = 50 feet #SCP2 Wetland AA 0.26 acre Wetland BB 0.003 acre Stream B 190 lf Stream A 305 lf Stream C (East Fork Stewarts Creek) 1,485 lf Stream D (Stewarts Creek) 1,097 lf Å 1 Å2 Å3 Å 4 Å5 Å6 Å7 (71 ac.) Simpson Farms Attachments June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0056 ATTACHMENT B: Agent Authorization Form Kevin Burrell BRD Land and Investments 1, LP BRD Land and Investments 1, LP 725 Cherry Rd Suite 3234, Rock Hill, SC 29732 2/27/2020 Simpson Farms Attachments June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0056 ATTACHMENT C: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (SAW-2020-00427) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action Id. SAW-2020-00427 County: Union U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Concord SE NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Requestor: BRD Land and Investments 1, Kevin Burrell Address: 725 Cheery Road, Suite 3234 Rock Hill, SC 29732 Telephone Number: 803-325-1925 E-mail: kevin@piotc.xom Size (acres) 69 Nearest Town Concord Nearest Waterway Reedy Creek River Basin Upper Pee Dee USGS HUC 03040105 Coordinates Latitude: 35.3032871 Longitude: -80.560389 Location description: The review area is located on the north and south side of Fowler Road; at the intersection of Fowler Road and Secrest Short Cut Road. PINs: N9213017B, L9213017B, and 09213017C. Reference review area description shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled “Figure 1, Vicinity Map” and Dated 08/27/2018. Indicate Which of the Following Apply: A.PreliminaryDetermination ܈ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 5/28/2020. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. ܆ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps. B. Approved Determination ܆ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ܆ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ܆We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps. ܆The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly SAW-2020-00427 suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years. ܆The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ܆ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ܆ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808-2808 to determine their requirements. Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Bryan Roden-Reynolds at 704-510-1440 or bryan.roden-reynolds@usace.army.mil. C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination form dated 6/2/2020. D. Remarks: None. E. Attention USDA Program Participants This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work. F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B. above) This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address: US Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division Attn: Phillip Shannin, Review Officer 60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable. **It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.** Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________ Date of JD: 6/2/2020 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 Digitally signed by RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 Date: 2020.06.02 09:26:08 -04'00' SAW-2020-00427 The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 Copy furnished: Agent: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. Aliisa Harjuniemi Address: 550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28273 Telephone Number: 980-259-1222 E-mail: aliia@cwis-inc.net NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: BRD Land and Investments 1, , Kevin Burrell File Number: SAW-2020-00427 Date: 6/2/2020 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B PERMIT DENIAL C APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. x OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. x APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. x ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. x APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal process you may contact: District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division Attn: Bryan Roden-Reynolds Charlotte Regulatory Office U.S Army Corps of Engineers 8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615 Charlotte, North Carolina 28262 If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also contact: Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer CESAD-PDO U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 Phone: (404) 562-5137 RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. ________________________________________ Signature of appellant or agent. Date: Telephone number: For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to: District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Bryan Roden-Reynolds, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to: Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 Phone: (404) 562-5137 PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 6/2/2020 B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: BRD Land and Investments 1, , Kevin Burrell, 725 Cheery Road, Suite 3234, Rock Hill, SC 29732 C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Simpson Farm, SAW-2020- 00427 D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located on the north and south side of Fowler Road; at the intersection of Fowler Road and Secrest Short Cut Road. PINs: N9213017B, L9213017B, and 09213017C. Reference review area description shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled “Figure 1, Vicinity Map” and Dated 08/27/2018. (USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: NC County: Union City: Concord Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.3032871 Longitude: -80.560389 Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Reedy Creek E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ܈Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 03/09/2020 ܈Field Determination. Date(s): 05/28/2020 TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION Feature Latitude (decimal degrees) Longitude (decimal degrees) Estimated amount of aquatic resources in review area (acreage and linear feet, if applicable Type of aquatic resources (i.e., wetland vs. non- wetland waters) Geographic authority to which the aquatic resource “may be” subject (i.e., Section 404 or Section 10/404) Stream A 35.03508200 -80.55989800 305 linear feet Non-wetland 404 Stream B 35.03689200 -80.55975400 190 linear feet Non-wetland 404 Stream C 35.03654200 -80.55937800 1485 linear feet Non-wetland 404 Stream D 35.02990200 -80.56198400 1097 linear feet Non-wetland 404 Wetland AA 35.03456700 -80.56002800 0.26 acre Wetland 404 Wetland BB 35.03530700 -80.55856700 0.003 acre Wetland 404 1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate. 2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information: SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items are included in the administrative record and are appropriately cited: ܈Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor: Map: Figures 1-7 ܈Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. Datasheets: ܈Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ܆Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: ܆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: Figure 2, USGS Topographic Map (1:24,000 Bakers, NC) ܈Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure 4, USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey of Union County (Dated 2017) and Figure 5, USDA-NRCS Historic Soil Survey of Union County (Soil Survey of Union County Sheets 13 and 18 Dated 1996) ܈National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Figure 6, National Wetland Inventory (USFWS NWI Mapper) ܆State/local wetland inventory map(s): ܆FEMA/FIRM maps: ܆100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) ܈ Photographs: ܈ Aerial (Name & Date): Figure 1, Vicinity Map (Dated 08/27/2018), Figure 3, Aerial Imagery (ESRI Aerial Imagery Dated 2016), and Figure 7, Jurisdictional Boundaries (Dated 5/28/2020) or ܈ Other (Name & Date): Photographs 1-7 ܆Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: ܈ Other information (please specify): NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms (Version 4.11) Dated 08/7/2018 IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations. Signature and date of Regulatory staff member completing PJD 6/2/2020 Signature and date of person requesting PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is impracticable) 1 1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action. RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNET H.1263385574 Digitally signed by RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.126338 5574 Date: 2020.06.02 09:24:57 -04'00' FIGURE NO.SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: CWS PROJECT NO: COORDINATES: 5 5 0 570 530 590 5505 3 0 570570570590590570590 5 9 0 FOWLER RD SECREST SHORT CUT RDM O N R O E E X P R E S SW A Y WALLA C E R D BACK R D ROLLING HILLS DRCOURTNEY STORE RD KENT CT GRIM K E RD Jurisdictional Boundaries 7 of 7 I 500 0 500250 Feet GCA 2018-0055 AVH Legend Project Limits (69 ac.) Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream Wetlands Culvert Roads Tax Parcels !DP Data Point #SCP Stream Classification Point ,Indicates Flow !Í Photo Location and Direction Simpson Farms Union County Monroe, North Carolina 5/28/20201 inch = 500 feet G:\Shared drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0055 Simpson Farms\JD\ArcGIS\Figure7_JD_rev5.28.20.mxd REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2017. NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND MAPPED USING A SUB-FOOT CAPABLE GPS UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON AUGUST 27, 2018. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WERE FIELD BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE ON MAY 28, 2020 (SAW-2020-00427). 35.033347, -80.560735 DP1DP2 # SCP1 DP3 I 1 inch = 150 feet I 1 inch = 50 feet #SCP2 Wetland AA 0.26 acre Wetland BB 0.003 acre Stream B 190 lf Stream A 305 lf Stream C (East Fork Stewarts Creek) 1,485 lf Stream D (Stewarts Creek) 1,097 lf Å 1 Å2 Å3 Å 4 Å5 Å6 Å7 Simpson Farms Attachments June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0056 ATTACHMENT D: Proposed Impacts W1 - Wetland AA- 0.11 acre permanentimpact (fill) Simpson Farms Attachments June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0056 ATTACHMENT E: Protected Species Assessment CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. 550 E. Westinghouse Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28273 704-527-1177 (office) 704-527-1133 (fax) June 26, 2020 Kevin Burrell BRD Land & Investment I, LP P.O. Box 3234 Rock Hill, SC 29732 Subject: Protected Species Survey Simpson Farms Monroe, North Carolina CWS Project No. 2018-0055 Dear Mr. Burrell, The BRD Land and Investments 1 has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide a protected species habitat assessment and survey for the Simpson Farms site. The Old Monroe Road site (Union County Tax Parcel Nos. 09213017B and 09213017C) is approximately 71 acres in extent and is located northeast and southeast of the Secrest Shortcut Road and Fowler Road intersection in Monroe, North Carolina (Figure 1, attached). Methods In -office Desktop Review To determine which protected species are listed as occurring or potentially occurring within the project vicinity and prior to conducting the on -site field investigation, CWS consulted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina online database for Union County'. In addition, CWS performed a data review using the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on June 22, 2020 to determine if any record occurrences of federally -listed, candidate endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat are located within the project limits. Typical habitat requirements for listed species were discerned from multiple USFWS3 and NCNHP' online resources including, but not limited to, specific USFWS species profiles, recovery plans, NCNHP's Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina, and List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web Soil Survey of Union County5 and aerial imagery were also reviewed for potential habitat communities of listed United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office. Accessed June 22, 2020. Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/Union.html Z North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer. Accessed June 22, 2020. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/. 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. http://www.fws.gov/nces/es/plant_Survey.html. Accessed June 22, 2020. 4 Buchanan, M.F. and J.T. Finnegan. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Accessed from https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html s United States Department of Agriculture, 2017. Web Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina. Source: https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA WWW.CWS-INC.NET Page 1 of 5 Simpson Farms June 26, 2020 Protected Species Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0055 species within the project vicinity (Figures 2 and 3). Field Survey CWS scientist Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS6 and Megan Shelton, WPIT7 conducted a pedestrian habitat assessment of the project area on August 27, 2018. Potential habitats for potentially occurring federally- protected species that were identified during the desktop review were assessed in the field for the quality of physical and/or biological features essential to the conservation of the applicable species. Additionally, during the pedestrian habitat assessment, areas were reviewed for applicable federally protected species. Identification references for natural communities include the National Land Cover Database (2011)'. An intensive survey for Schweinitz's sunflower and Michaux's sumac was conducted on June 22, 2020. Photographs 1-10 are representative of the site conditions at the time of the survey (Attachment B). Prior to the field work, CWS scientists visited a reference population of Helianthus schweinitzii on June 9, 2020 to determine the condition of its stem, leaves, and flowers. Based on the reference population, the above ground plant parts are identifiable and the plant was approximately three feet tall, but no flowers were present (Photograph 11). Results Based on the NCNHP data explorer review, there are no known occurrences of federally -protected species within the project limits or within a mile of the project limits (Attachment A). The USFWS lists three federally protected species for Union County (Table 1). Additionally, bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act'. An official species list has not been obtained from the USFWS Asheville Field Office. Table 1. Unofficial List of Federally -Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the Old Monroe Road Site, Union County, NC. Major Group Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status* Record Status Helianthus Schweinitz's Plant schweinitzii sunflower E Current Plant Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Historic Animal Lasmigona Carolina heelsplitter E Current decorata Haliaeetus Animal Bald eagle BGPA Current leucocephalus * E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Two terrestrial community types were identified within the project area during the field survey. These community types consist of mixed forest and open herbaceous areas (Figure 3). Of the identified on -site community types, the herbaceous areas may be considered potential habitat for federally threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur within the project 6 Professional Wetland Scientist, The Society of Wetland Scientists Professional Certification Training Program 7 Wetland Professional in Training, The Society of Wetland Scientists Professional Certification Training Program 8 MLRC. National Land Cover Database, 2011. https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcdll_leg.php 9 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html Page 2 of 5 Simpson Farms June 26, 2020 Protected Species Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0055 limits. A brief description of each species habitat requirements and determination of effect findings are listed below by species. Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb with yellow rays and yellow centers. They can reach heights of five feet. Populations are limited to the piedmont of North and South Carolina. It has been listed as an Endangered species under the ESA since 1991.10 The typical habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission line right-of-ways, open areas, either natural or human -maintained habitats, or edges of upland woods. Major characteristics of soils associated with suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, soils that are clay like in both composition and texture (and often with substantial rock fragments), soils that have a high shrinkage swell capacity, and those which vary over the course of the year from very wet to very dry. Biological Analysis: A NCNHP data record review did not reveal any records of Schweinitz's sunflower within a one -mile radius of the project area (Attachment A). The majority of the study area is open herbaceous area which can be potential habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower (Figure 3: Photographs 1-8). An intensive survey was conducted on June 23, 2020 and no individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower or other Helianthus species were observed within the project area. Additionally, no individuals Schweinitz's sunflower were observed during the site visit conducted on August 27, 2018. As no individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed within the project limits and there are no known populations within a mile from the project limits, CWS concludes that this project will have no effect on Schweinitz's sunflower. Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous shrub. It is densely hairy with compound leaves exhibiting evenly -serrated leaflets. Flowers are small, greenish to white, in terminal clusters. Fruits are red drupes produced from August to October. It has been listed as an Endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1989.11 It is found on the coastal plains of Virginia to Florida, with most populations occurring in North Carolina. It prefers sandy or rocky open woods with basic soils, as well as, highway right-of-ways, roadsides, or edges of artificially -maintained clearings. Biological Analysis: An NCNHP data record review revealed that there are no current occurrences for this species within the project limits or within a one -mile radius of the project (Attachment A). An intensive survey was conducted on June 23, 2020 within the open areas and no 10 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) Determined to be Endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/frl852.pdf. 11 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac). http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr1601.pdf. Page 3 of 5 Simpson Farms June 26, 2020 Protected Species Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0055 individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed. No individuals Michaux's sumac were observed during the site visits conducted on August 27, 2018 or June 23, 2020. Additionally, there are no current records of this species within Union County12. Due to the lack of observed individuals and known occurrences within Union County, CWS concludes that this project will have no effect on Michaux's sumac. Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) Habitat Description: The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and Savannah River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system in South Carolina. In North Carolina, the species is now known only from a handful of streams in the Pee Dee and Catawba River systems. The species exists in very low abundances, usually within 6 feet of shorelines, throughout its known range. The general habitat requirements for the Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed into clay banks between the root systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with moderate current. Recently, the Carolina heelsplitter has been found in sections of streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices filled with sand and gravel, and with wide riparian buffers.13 Biological Analysis: There are two perennial streams located within the project limits that are potential habitats for the Carolina heelsplitter. However, the project as currently proposed will not disturb these perennial streams and according to the NCNHP data record review there are no current observances for this species within the project limits or within a one -mile radius of the project (Attachment A). Therefore, CWS concludes that this project will have no effect on the Carolina heelsplitter. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,14 enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone without a permit issued, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. Habitat for the bald eagle includes cliffs and forested areas typically within 1.0 mile of estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, rivers, seacoast, and as they become more abundant, stands of undisturbed forest. A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as, the area within a 1 mile radius of the project limits, was performed on June 22, 2020 using 2020 color aerials. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study area and the area within the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on June 22, 2020 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of habitat and known occurrences, CWS concludes that this project will have no effect on this species. 12 USFWS Michaux's Sumac Recovery Plan; https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/930430.pdf 13 NCDOT TE Animal Habitat Descriptions. 2015. https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/Compliance%20Guides%20and%20Procedures/TE%20Animal%20Habitat% 20Descriptions%20Mar_6_2015.pdf 14 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/eaglepermits/bagepa.html Page 4 of 5 Simpson Farms Protected Species Assessment Report June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0055 Summary Based on a literature search and the results of the on -site assessment for potential habitat of federally -protected endangered, and threatened species, potential habitat was not observed for bald eagles. Therefore the proposed project will have no effect on this species. The perennial streams provide potential habitat for Carolina Heelspitter. However, the project will not directly disturb these streams. Potential habitats for Schweinitz's sunflower and Michaux's sumac were surveyed, but no individuals of these species were found on June 22, 2020. Therefore, the project as proposed is not likely to directly or indirectly jeopardize the continued existence of these species. Biological determinations requirements for federally protected species are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Bioloaical Determination Reauirements Summary Table for Federallv Protected Species Federal Effect on Listed Biological Scientific Name Common Name Status* Species Determination Required Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E No effect No Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E No effect No Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter T No effect No Haliaeetus Bald eagle BGPA No Effect No leucocephalus * E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act " MANLAA - May affect but not likely to adversely affect The lead federal agency will determine if written concurrence from the USFWS is required based on the findings of this report. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services on this important project. Please do not hesitate to contact Aliisa Harjuniemi at 980-259-1222 or aliisa@cws-inc.net should you have any questions or comments regarding this report. Sincerely, Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS Senior Project Scientist Attachments: Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map Figure 2: USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey of Union County Figure 3: Aerial Map Attachment A: NCNHP Data Review Report Attachment B: Representative Photographs (1-11) Page 5 of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²%DGLQFKDQQHU\VLOWORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHV 1R %G%²%DGLQFKDQQHU\VLOW\FOD\ORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVPRGHUDWHO\HURGHG 1R &K$²&KHZDFODVLOWORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVIUHTXHQWO\IORRGHG <HV &P%²&LGFKDQQHU\VLOWORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHV 1R 6F$²6HFUHVW&LGFRPSOH[WRSHUFHQWVORSHV 1R 7D%²7DUUXVJUDYHOO\VLOWORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHV 1R 7E%²7DUUXVJUDYHOO\VLOW\FOD\ORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVPRGHUDWHO\HURGHG 1R 7RWDO&RYHUDJH DF ),*85(126&$/( &:6352-(&712 &225',1$7(6 '$7( '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 6&$/( &:6352-(&712 &225',1$7(6 )2:/(55'6(&5(676+257&875':$//$ & ( 5 ' 0 2 1 5 2 ( ( ; 3 5 ( 6 6 : $ < $HULDO,PDJHU\ I )HHW *&$ $9+ /HJHQG 3URMHFW/LPLWVDF 3RWHQWLDO+DELWDW6FKZHLQLW]¶VVXQIORZHU 5RDGV 7D[3DUFHOV :HWODQGV ,QWHUPLWWHQW6WUHDP 3HUHQQLDO6WUHDP !Í 3KRWR/RFDWLRQDQG'LUHFWLRQ 6LPSVRQ)DUPV 8QLRQ&RXQW\ 0RQURH1RUWK&DUROLQD LQFK IHHW *?6KDUHGGULYHV?&RQVXOWLQJ7HDP'ULYH??&RQVXOWLQJ3URMHFWV?6LPSVRQ)DUPV?-'?$UF*,6?)LJXUHB3(76P[GÅ 5()(5(1&(%$&.*5281'$(5,$/,0$*(5<3529,'('%<1&21(0$3'$7('%$&.*5281' *,6/$<(563529,'('%<81,21&2817<*,6'(3$570(17'$7(' 127('(/,1($7,213(5)250('%<&:6,1&21$8*8673527(&7('63(&,(6 :(5(6859(<('%<&:621-81( ÅÅ Å ÅÅÅÅÅÅ DF Simpson Farms Attachments June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-00557 ATTACHMENT A: NCNHP Data Review Report NCNHDE-12336 June 22, 2020 Megan Shelton Carolina Wetland Services 550 East Westinghouse Blvd Charlotte , NC 28273 RE: Simpson Farms; 2018-0055 Dear Megan Shelton: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary, or within a one-mile radius of the project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within or near the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our records. Please also note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may also not be redistributed without permission. If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butler@ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603. Sincerely, NC Natural Heritage Program Page 2 of 2 Simpson Farms Attachments June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-00557 ATTACHMENT B: Representative Photographs (1-11) Simpson Farms June 26, 2020 Photopage CWS Project No. 2018-0055 Photograph 1. Marginal habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower, facing west. Photograph 2. Marginal habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower, facing northwest. Photopage 1 of 6 Simpson Farms June 26, 2020 Photopage CWS Project No. 2018-0055 Photograph 3. Marginal habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower, facing northeast Photograph 4. Marginal habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower, facing northwest. Photopage 2 of 6 Simpson Farms June 26, 2020 Photopage CWS Project No. 2018-0055 Photograph 5. Marginal habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower, facing southwest. Photograph 6. Marginal habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower, facing southwest. Photopage 3 of 6 Simpson Farms Photopage June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0055 Photograph 7. Marginal habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower, facing west. Photograph 8. Marginal habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower, facing northwest. Photopage 4 of 6 Simpson Farms Photopage June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0055 Photograph 9. View of perennial stream, facing downstream. Photograph 10. View of perennial stream, facing downstream. Photopage 5 of 6 Simpson Farms June 26, 2020 Photopage CWS Project No. 2018-0055 Photograph 11. Schweinitz's sunflower reference population (June 9, 2020). Photopage 6 of 6 Simpson Farms Attachments June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0056 ATTACHMENT F: ILF Acceptance Letter June 25, 2020 Kevin Burrell BRD Land and Investments 1, Inc. PO Box 3234 Rock Hill, SC 29732 Expiration of Acceptance: 12/25/2020 Project: Simpson Farms County: Union The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in- lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11. This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant’s responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS 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 by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website. Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below. River Basin Impact Location (8-digit HUC) Impact Type Impact Quantity Yadkin 03040105 Riparian Wetland 0.11 Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In-Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in-lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at (919) 707-8915. Sincerely, FOR James. B Stanfill Asset Management Supervisor cc: Aliisa Harjumiemi, agent Simpson Farms Attachments June 26, 2020 CWS Project No. 2018-0056 ATTACHMENT G: NC WAM Form NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0 USACE AID # NCDWR# Project Name Simpson Farms Date of Evaluation 6.23.20 Applicant/Owner Name BRD Land and Investments 1 Wetland Site Name Wetland AA Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization CWS Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Stewarts Creek River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040105 County Union NCDWR Region Mooresville Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.034540, -80.560091 Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area) Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following. • Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.) • Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.) • Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.) • Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.) Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area. Anadromous fish Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) Publicly owned property N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer) Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout Designated NCNHP reference community Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream What type of natural stream is associated with the wetla nd, if any? (check all that apply) Blackwater Brownwater Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No 1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment area based on evidence an effect. GS VS A A Not severely altered B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compact ion, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration) 2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable. Surf Sub A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered. B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation). C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change ) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines). 3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT). AA WT 3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep 3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot 4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes) Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature. Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional indicators. 4a. A Sandy soil B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redox imorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres) C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redox imorphic features D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil E Histosol or histic epipedon 4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch 4c. A No peat or muck presence B A peat or muck presence 5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank , underground storage tank (UST), etc. Surf Sub A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetla nd and stressing, but not overwhelming the treatment capacity of the assessment area C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive sedimentation, odor) 6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands) Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). WS 5M 2M A A A > 10% impervious surfaces B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area. 7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands) 7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water? Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8. Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed. 7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbe d.) A ≥ 50 feet B From 30 to < 50 feet C From 15 to < 30 feet D From 5 to < 15 feet E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches 7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width. ≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present) 7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend in to the bank of the tributary/open water? Yes No 7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed? Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic. Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic. 8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest only) Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries. WT WC A A ≥ 100 feet B B From 80 to < 100 feet C C From 50 to < 80 feet D D From 40 to < 50 feet E E From 30 to < 40 feet F F From 15 to < 30 feet G G From 5 to < 15 feet H H < 5 feet 9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands) Answer for assessment area dominant landform. A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days) B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more) 10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes) Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition). A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels. B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland. C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland. 11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column. WT WC FW (if applicable) A A A ≥ 500 acres B B B From 100 to < 500 acres C C C From 50 to < 100 acres D D D From 25 to < 50 acres E E E From 10 to < 25 acres F F F From 5 to < 10 acres G G G From 1 to < 5 acres H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut 12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only) A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size. B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size. 13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric 13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundari es are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300 feet wide. Well Loosely A A ≥ 500 acres B B From 100 to < 500 acres C C From 50 to < 100 acres D D From 10 to < 50 acres E E < 10 acres F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats 13b. Evaluate for marshes only. Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands. 14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland) May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut, select option ”C.” A 0 B 1 to 4 C 5 to 8 15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat) A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area. B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata. C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non - characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at least one stratum. 16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only) A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics). B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics. C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics). 17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric 17a. Is vegetation present? Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18. 17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands. A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation B < 25% coverage of vegetation 17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately. AA WT A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps C C Canopy sparse or absent A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent A A Dense shrub layer B B Moderate density shrub layer C C Shrub layer sparse or absent A A Dense herb layer B B Moderate density herb layer C C Herb layer sparse or absent 18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). B Not A 19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are present. B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH. C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees. 20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris. A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). B Not A 21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only) Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water. A B C D 22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only) Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D. A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area. B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area. C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area. D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area. Notes Wetland is located within an agricultural field and has been regularly plowed in the past. Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0 Wetland Site Name Wetland AA Date of Assessment 6.23.20 Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization CWS Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO Sub-function Rating Summary Function Sub-function Metrics Rating Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO Particulate Change Condition LOW Condition/Opportunity NA Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA Soluble Change Condition LOW Condition/Opportunity LOW Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO Physical Change Condition LOW Condition/Opportunity LOW Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO Pollution Change Condition NA Condition/Opportunity NA Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW Vegetation Composition Condition LOW Function Rating Summary Function Metrics Rating Hydrology Condition MEDIUM Water Quality Condition LOW Condition/Opportunity LOW Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO Habitat Condition LOW Overall Wetland Rating LOW