20051068 Ver 2_401 Application_20100506

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
S$ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
[phone] fax
N.C. Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Attn: Mr. Ian McMillan
We are Sending You:
items
? Shop drawings
Report
® Reapplication of NWP-39
? Prints ? Plans ? Copy of letter
the following

Copies Date No Description
5 04.30.10 1 PCN
1 04.23.10 2 Check for $570
OV
d R5 U@
These are Transmitted as Checked Below:
IJAY G - 2010 i9
® For your records ? For your use and approval t
F] For review and comment ?'bi 0IVAU
? As requested
? For Bids Due: ? Prints Returned after Loan to Us
Remarks: Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the above. Thank you
Copy To: USACE; Client; File
Signed:
ou ern ine ou evar ar o e, 8273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
#S&ME
Date: 04.30.10 Job No.: 1357-02-365D
Attention: Ian McMillan
Re: Kannapolis Parkway Property
USACE Action ID 200431266
DWQ Project No. 05-1068 V X

® Attached n Under separate cover via
r, .re.. a.. . .-. , ..v . _ - 1 , .. 4s - 1F-Ig9+"T_? T W..lF7S?rPC '4^' %",tJen.
f ?
a
*_ S&ME
April 30, 2010
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Attention: Mr. Ian McMillan
Reference: Re-application for Nationwide Permit No. 39
Kannapolis Parkway Development
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-02-365D
USACE Action ID 200431266
DWQ Project No. 05-1068
Dear Messrs. Chapin and McMillan:
$PAIND
=q i
MAY C - 2010
WEXO AANp ?A? 1t VMC.4
On behalf of Childress Klein Properties, S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit this
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 39 application for completion of previously-authorized
work associated with the project referenced above. The subject property is located
adjacent to Interstate 85 and southwest of Kannapolis Parkway in Concord, Cabarrus
County, North Carolina.
Please find enclosed the following information:
• Figures: Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), 2009
Aerial Photograph (Figure 3); Site Layout (Figure 4) and Impact Area Plan View
(Figure 5);
• Appendix 1: Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) and Agent Authorization Form;
• Appendix II: Copies of Previous NWP/401 Certification Letters;
• Appendix III: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form;
• Appendix IV: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) letter and
copy of payment check; and
• A check for $570.00 - N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) application fee.
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
Re-application for Nationwide Permit No. 39 SWE Project Number 1357-02-365D
Kannapolis Parkway Development April 30, 2010
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The subject property is an approximately 272-acre tract located north of and adjacent to
Interstate 85, southwest of Kannapolis Parkway and east Goodman Road in Cabarrus
County, North Carolina (35.416°N, 80.683°W). The location of the site is identified on
the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), a USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2) and a 2009 Aerial
Photograph (Figure 3).
To facilitate development of the property, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
authorized Childress Klein Properties to impact 0.38 acres of wetlands, 2921f of
perennial stream and 1,0181f of intermittent stream in accordance with NWP No. 39 on
September 26, 2005 (attached). The corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification
(attached) was issued by the DWQ on July 13, 2005 (Appendix II).
Development of the portion of the site located west of Kannapolis Parkway and east of
Coddle Creek commenced shortly after issuance of the aforementioned permits, and is
now complete. Impacts associated with the completed portion of the site consist of
1,018 if of intermittent stream, 0.01 acre of adjacent wetlands and 0.01 acre of
isolated wetlands.
The portion of the site located west of Coddle Creek remains largely undeveloped, with
the exception of a bridge and roadway, and consists primarily of mowed fields, former
pastureland and woodland. The surrounding area is composed of a mix of vacant
woodland, farm fields and scattered residential and commercial development.
ON-SITE JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
Remaining on-site jurisdictional waters located within the undeveloped portion of the site
(west of Coddle Creek) are limited to two wetlands and two streams, namely:
Wetland A: A former on-site pond that was drained. Existing vegetation consist of
black willow (Salix nigra) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Herbaceous vegetation
consists of soft rush (Juncus effusus) and various invasives. Wetland A is
approximately 0.33 acre in size.
Wetland B: This wetland area adjoins Stream 1, and is approximately 0.04 acre in
size. Typical overstory vegetation consists of red maple, iron wood (Carpinus
caroliniana) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Herbaceous vegetation is
sparse or absent.
Coddle Creek: Coddle Creek is located in the Yadkin River Basin, Subbasin 11,
and DWQ's Stream Index Number for the creek is 13-17-6 (5.5), and the
classification is "C" (no restrictions on watershed development activities). The
stream enters the northern property boundary, and then exits the property at the
southern boundary, where it passes under a bridge at Interstate 85. On average, the
bottom width of the stream exceeds twenty feet. Approximately 4,2501f of Coddle
Creek is located on the subject property.
Re-application for Nationwide Permit No. 39 SWE Project Number 1357-02-365D
Kannapolis Parkway Development April 30, 2010
Stream 1: This channel is classified as perennial. Stream 1 originates at Wetland A
and flows east into Coddle Creek. A portion of this stream is bordered by a small
area of riparian wetlands (Wetland B). Stream 1 is approximately 7601f in length.
The on-site jurisdictional boundaries were delineated by S&ME and approved by the
USACE on July 19, 2004, and stream classifications were approved by DWQ May 28,
2004. Wetland data forms and stream classification forms were provided with the
original permit application. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form prepared
for the site is included in Appendix 111.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND PROPOSED IMPACTS
The purpose of the proposed project is to finish work that began in 2006 but was not fully
complete prior to expiration of the NWP-39. The completed portion of the project
includes construction of a commercial shopping complex and its associated support
infrastructure in the southeastern portion of the property, near the junction of Interstate 85
and Kannapolis Parkway. An 80-foot wide public roadway and an associated bridge over
Coddle Creek was also constructed to facilitate extension of Goodman Road from its
terminus near the western property boundary east through the site to Kannapolis
Parkway.
Development of the western portion of the site was delayed due to the economic
downturn. Childress Klein Properties is now ready to proceed with development of this
portion of the property. Remaining elements of the project that have not been completed
are limited primarily to those associated with the industrial park. The industrial park
consists of a total of eight buildings and their associated parking and loading/unloading
facilities. The buildings are expected to range in size from approximately 317,000 sf to
180,000 sf.
The remaining, previously-authorized impacts resulting from this phase will consist
of 292 If of perennial stream and 0.37 acre of adjacent wetlands. The proposed
project layout and its associated impacts have not changed from those authorized in
connection with the original permit.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to on-site jurisdictional areas
while maintaining its economic viability. These avoidance measures allowed the project-
wide impacts to perennial channels to remain limited to less than 3001f, and project-wide
wetlands impacts to less than 0.5 acre. Some of the avoidance measures that were
originally undertaken during the planning phase are described below:
• Impacts to Coddle Creek were entirely avoided through use of a bridge crossing
that completely spans the creek, eliminating the need for culverts or other
structures in the channel.
• Marketable high ground located between Coddle Creek and Interstate 85 was left
undisturbed, eliminating the need for additional stream impacts.
Re-application for Nationwide Permit No. 39 SWE Project Number 1357-02-365D
Kannapolis Parkway Development April 30, 2010
• The public roadway was shifted northward of its original proposed alignment.
Placement of the roadway as proposed now allows a significant portion of the
affected stream to remain undisturbed.
In connection with the original permit submittal process, S&ME and Childress Klein
worked closely through meetings and correspondence to modify the project to avoid all
but necessary impacts, preserve open space, and to utilize the Coddle Creek corridor as a
preservation area.
During construction, sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs)
will be employed in order to comply with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard.
These BMPs shall be consistent with specifications governing their proper design,
installation, operation and maintenance, as outlined in the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and
approved by the local governing authority. Impacts have been avoided and minimized,
and appropriate measures will be taken during construction to allow flow and circulation
patterns of waters of the U.S. to remain unaffected.
PROTECTED SPECIES
In connection with the original NWP application, S&ME provided scoping letters to the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(USFWS) in Asheville, North Carolina. The scoping letters included a description of the
property, figures detailing the location of the project area, and a request for comment
regarding concerns that the respective agencies may have on the project. Both the
NCNHP and the USFWS expressed concern regarding potential impacts to the Carolina
darter (Etheostoma collis), a State Special Concern fish that was identified approximately
0.5 mile downstream of the project area in 1995. Both agencies indicated that extreme
care should be taken to prevent sediment from reaching the creek, and that proper
sediment barriers should be installed. The NCNHP database identified one federally
protected plant species, Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and one
federally protected invertebrate species, the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
with a documented population in Cabarrus County.
A pedestrian reconnaissance of the subject property for H. schweinitzii was conducted in
connection with the original NWP application; no specimens were found to be present.
At the time of the reconnaissance, the property was heavily grazed by cattle, and
conditions were such that suitable habitat for the sunflower was not present. The record
for the Carolina heelsplitter was obscure, meaning the date and/or location of the original
observation was uncertain.
To address the concerns of each agency, Childress Klein's on-site mitigation plan
maintains a permanent, vegetated buffer within the entire floodway of Coddle Creek.
The buffer varies in width from 50 to over 200 feet on either side of the creek, and, with
the exception of an existing 45-foot utility easement, remains vegetated and protected
through a deed restriction prepared in accordance with the USACE model declaration of
restrictions.
4
Re-application for Nationwide Permit No. 39 SWE Project Number 1357-02-365D
Kannapolis Parkway Development April 30, 2010
Additional water quality protection methods were implemented through the construction
of permanent water quality basins (see Stormwater Section of this letter).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
In connection with the original NWP application, Childress Klein contracted TRC, Inc. to
conduct a reconnaissance level cultural resource survey of the subject property in 2005.
The effort included conducting background research at the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA), the North Carolina State Archives, and the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Field work associated with the archaeological
survey consisted of pedestrian survey and shovel testing. Archaeological reconnaissance
of the project area indicated that most of the property consisted of eroded soils unlikely to
contain any significant archaeological resources. Although several landforms along
Coddle Creek appeared to have potential for archaeological sites, examination these
portions of the project area revealed that the topsoil was depleted and no archaeological
remains were encountered. TRC concluded that it was unlikely that any significant
archaeological sites would be located in the project area and no additional work was
recommended.
STORMWATER
A complete Stormwater Management Permit Application was submitted to DWQ through
the Express Review Program in 2005, in connection with the original NWP. This
application included a completed DWQ Stormwater Management Permit Application
Form, completed NCDENR DWQ 401 Wet Detention Basin Worksheets for each basin,
an Operations and Maintenance Plan for each basin, and complete design calculations for
each basin in anticipation of requirements that may be presented in any future 401 Water
Quality Certification Approval Letters and/or 404 General Permits for the site. DWQ
required that permanent water quality basins be installed throughout the planned
development as a means of water quality protection.
Greater than 30 percent of the project site is proposed to be developed as impervious
area. As a means of water quality protection, permanent water quality basins were
constructed in connection with developed portions of the site, and are proposed to be
installed in connection with the site's completion. Uncompleted elements of the
stormwater management plan shall be constructed and operational in connection with
development of the remainder of the site.
MITIGATION
Mitigation credit purchased for all impacts, both completed and proposed, was purchased
from the EEP in connection with original permit; a copy of the payment check is attached
(Appendix IV).
5
Re-application for Nationwide Permit No. 39 SWE Project Number 1357-02-365D
Kannapolis Parkway Development April 30, 2010
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your acceptance
with this permit application. Please feel free to contact us if you need additional
information.
Sincerely,
S&ME
Joey er W.S. Vichael "olfe?_
Natural R ources Project Manager Natural Resources Project Manager
Senior Review by Julie Bennett-Hudel, P.G., LEED AP
Attachments
N ?
.` 1 V

e.
51, 1482 i? a
Enochwile
ap41?
W
?
$ E
g
E11th67 r,
cwt !c•- __ ___
ow Rd N Q a c .
R 15`? wC
SR 1610 R;
- SR S l
SR
1 aQ o
3,Q ?e Q ?
561 A ?
1@ ?s p r ? ? 6rant?.
rRo
''
C ?1
s
152
R er5r
e ?owW <
,F,OA fa N 3 1624 1618 Qye??e h?
w
i
5
R Fa;N
e

o

?
, 0

i
5t
WatKet
t6oe
1625 Kennapol7s
1611 s
`SP
'• i
Y
1
? P o g
C s ? m .ec
y n!' 4x
6 R
a 4 p
SR ,sue 0 y
6 46
S
p
t ?

SR 1608 Ott
St e
Fise7
'\ m '"Y opPe
N
J'y SR 162,
4
73 ?eps8e Rd ., 9
- n, ore
N 1? ^ 73
:v
y - ,
h 2424 7 i. 3
Sq, ;0 1428 Lee I've a
0
SP fe-_ 1195 µ0
1410 °` a 2 eo
?+e tf CO
r
9
? e
a T
5 do ` I "= ?a
o
y ?
r SF
' -
Mcg4H Ave NW ?a*
I •.:741 fP
1414
1194 °70 ;H 14^. 5R 1, '?P
n
a. ; 1431 Concord Gd
t
1431
e 1445 ?
s
8RR76, ,

S ?k71r F S??
R ?y6j Sft 7447

SR F v `'
Concord 2 0 1305
p' v 1157
?
-
t oh, Regional ?
A y
y^,
1:106
T@
SR 24AI yq24 701
ray
S
65 SR 1433
kwieM 1466
`SA 62`
/ .,
CrseA
nan 1
SR 747 ?
_ aoaf Ft4nF LMke Vwe
a9 W

s v
ky 2461

4 2475
0 'r ",-u
2469 ', 7
S
SA ?
4
267;
- c 1100 per 'R,:-
CM Project Area ^ y

REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ESRI STREETMAP WORLD 2D DATASET PLEASE NOTE
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER 0 2 3
USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEESABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Miles
CALE: AS SHOWN
SITE VICINITY MAP FIGURE
NO.
ATE: 4,23.2010
S&ME Kannapolis Parkway Development
RAWN BY:
DDH F Kannapolis, NC 1

iECKEDBY: MW PROJECTNO:
1357-02-365D
?
_"' ?yl{: J ?1? -? I?? 1?^1- ?: ?ir' y., _ s it (• ?AV -?
? r 1' t , r s \ 1 i ? t \w ?•,?? tf ?`?+7 "? ; 1 '. ? `? ¦ ?, y 'd rr `' S
? A ? .i• j I . ltd ? '''?? ??j??`+f 1 I .-, -'?. '?,. -?' `?.. _.? „,. ?,J
s "?1
f t
f t ?
1 \ ?
%
1 4 f I ?f f 1 ?, ! \ 4? _ _
I
r 1
i q
•t/t is - ..,? ..rye ( ? ..1?'-< f J?_ 1,•+'
???t,. ? ?f . T?1 ? ?t + `? ? ? ?.,v..` _. ,?• ??? 1 1? I I rte` . i !:
j 1
r?.
f`? '? ? • ;•, ' 1 ~ r ? X ? :?? ?'?? is ??'?` -- •,? ?. +,,`f ,Yh`1 ..i 4..
f
?''.' i?,-^ - f .' ?•_ ? i ? '"'r i"r_- v ??,'` v? ??.? •.,?1,?r? +... - ?1 i 1 '? ?I?'JI
r
! - 1
(Nj
¦ ¦ ; Location of Proposed Development
Total Project Area
REFERENCE: USGS 1988 KANNAPOLIS [NC] QUAD SHEET 1 '
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CABARRUS COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
DEPARTMENT WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR O_ fjoo 1.000 -,,rn,1r500
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO ,
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
.r r _ p
SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE
DATE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NO.
4.23.2010 S&ME Kannapolis Parkway Development
DRAWN 'HECK BY: DDH ; - 2
Kannapolis, NC
HECKEDBY: MW PROJECTNO:
? 1357-02-365D
V
;Ay" ,{ jo-h 'ti`p <ts v 'n,
?r a r vJ a k v ?} NAVAJO y
d r 9
NSZ"RD??y n"t x ??` Opp 6,
t ? ?44 R LA KE"?R
F
M
;N- z".
' '?- ?^ r '?? s•m e.• - s,.„ .? ?, e' ?S WABASH:LN
10
mss, ?* ?, c ?: ` . ? ??
FO
q
YCr a >'
e-
s
r
?b ¦
," NWT
¦ ? • ? ILLAGE=DR
GOODMANR
?,.?.. ?? ? ' • f??? ? OMEN"P?????
?¦ ??f FE?T-ZERAv1
Ya w ¦?f ¦ f - ! KESLER-AVE-NW
N 1`
v. ago w"t'j A 'N,'.kl
G ?
r.. r 2 rl ccj. 1.y
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ POPLAR=TENT =RD??\\
¦ ¦ Location of Proposed Development
.... q?? 2CS Tq? opC
Total Project Area Soy C zti ti?
REFERENCE:2009 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL IMAGERY PROGRAM (NAIP) AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 2 ? GRAIGM
THE ABOVE GIS LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE CABARRUS COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) G?I? O
DEPARTMENTAND THE UDSA GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS 0 2500 1,000 1,500
ACCURACY. SRME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER
?s. BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
x_ ...... ..... ... ... _..,,.._-u _ _
11 7r---
SCALE: 1„ = 1,000' FIGURE
DATE: 4.23.2010 2009 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NO.
Kannapolis Parkway Development
DRAWN BY: DDH
S&ME
Kannapolis, NC
CHECKED BY: PROJECTNO:
? MW 1357-02-365D ,
MW
*A8 43N33HO
nor/OS030 a99c-ZO-L9c l szL`-r`s(`°L)
*3 'MiOIW?0
AB NMVNG 'ON 103rONd'OAl9£LLBZ 3NId N Nll3HLf10S lS RLMS tgL63WWS
O LOZ'2Z t 31VQ SL-V =„ l
:31VOS
0
LL- w
=OYa-
F-?wOJ
LL. V) D? LLJ
OwUw
Z w?
0(-) Q
LLJ
N D 9
ON `SI-lOdVNNV>i
1N3WdM3A3(l ),VM)48Vd SI-lOd`dNNV)4
lno),v? 3lis
Q
N
C5
z
MW
?Or/OS030
OIOZ'cZ'-v :31YO
a S 9c- Z O - L 5c l 9ZLi-£ZS(ti0L) 3WVS'ON 103`o8d £LZ9Z '3'N '3L o-NVH3
M18 Ad Nll3RLrK)S LQL6
,SLR=„ L
:31VOS
LLJ
=OYO
~ ~ W J
U) LLJ
OQU]
LL-
W W
W C)
OUO)-
f=WOo
rv .. Q
ON `SMdVNN` A
1N3WdO13A30 .,VMA8Vd SMdVNNVA
1nW\Vd 31lS
Q
Li
x
c; 1;t
zz

Appendix I:
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) and
Agent Authorization Form
O?0f W ATeq?G
p5- lolo$ Ua
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification C Form
A. Applicant Information Ch 1'r
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the

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

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Kannapolis Parkway Site
2b. County: Cabarrus
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Concord 0
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A MAT G - 2010
3. Owner Information WETLANDS AND STORN ATER0MCH
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: CK Lakepointe Corporate Center, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 055780115
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Childress Klein Properties

q oa-t b
3d. Street address: 2800 One Wachovia Center 301 South College Street
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, N.C. 28202
3f. Telephone no.: 704.342.9000
3g. Fax no.: 704.342.9039
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
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: Joey Lawler, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable): S&ME, Inc.
5c. Street address: 9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no.: 704.523.4726
5f. Fax no.: 704.525.3953
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 4691809559
Latitude: 35.416 °N Longitude: - 80.683
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): °W
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 272 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Coddle Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: 13-17-6 (5.5), Class C
2c. River basin: Yadkin River Basin
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:
Portions of the property located east of Coddle Creek are developed with a retail shopping center. The portion of the site
located west of Coddle Creek remains largely undeveloped, with the exception of a bridge and roadway, and consists
primarly of open fields, former pastureland and woodland. The surrounding area is comprised of a mix of vacant
woodland, farm fields and scattered residential and commercial development.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Within undeveloped project area west of Coddle Creek: W1 = 0.33 acre and W2 = 0.04.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Within undeveloped project area west of Coddle Creek: Coddle Creek (RPW with perennial flow) = 4,250 If and S1 (RPW
with perennial flow) = 760 If.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to finish work that began in 2006 but was not fully complete prior to expiration of
the NWP-39. The work was initially authorized by the USACE and DWQ in 2005 and began in 2006, but was not
completed in its entireity due to the economic downturn of 2008-2009. The completed portion of the project includes
construction of a commercial shopping complex and its associated support infrastructure in the southeastern portion of
the property, near the junction of Interstate 85 and Kannapolis Parkway. An 80-foot wide public roadway and an
associated bridge over Coddle Creek was also constructed to facilitate extension of Goodman Road from its terminus
near the western property boundary east through the site to Kannapolis Parkway.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Remaining elements of the project that have not been completed are limited primarily to those associated with the
industrial park. The industrial park consists of a total of eight buildings and their associated parking and
loading/unloading facilities. The buildings are expected to range in size from approximately 317,000 sf to 180,000 sf.
Remaining, previously-authorized impacts to streams and wetlands associated with completion of the site are located
west of Coddle Creek, and are necessary to complete construction of Goodman Road. The industrial park consists of a
total of eight buildings and their associated parking and loading/unloading facilities. The buildings are expected to range
in size from approximately 317,000 sf to 180,000 sf.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
® Yes [_1 No El Unknown
Comments:
Yes
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ®Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: S&ME
Name (if known): S&ME Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
July 19, 2004, USACE 200230273
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
The USACE authorized Childress Klein Properties to impact 0.38 acres of wetlands, 292 If of perennial stream and 1,018 If of
intermittent stream in accordance with NWP No. 39 on September 26, 2005 (USACE No. 200431266). The corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification was issued by the DWQ on July 13, 2005 (DWQ No. 05-1068).
Development of the portion of the site located east of Coddle Creek commenced shortly after issuance of the aforementioned
permits, and is now complete. Impacts associated with the completed portion of the site consist of 1,018 If of intermittent
stream, 0.01 acre of adjacent wetlands and 0.01 acre of isolated wetlands. Development of the remainder of the site located
west of Coddle Creek was delayed due to the economic downturn. Childress Klein Properties is now ready to proceed with
development of this portion of the property. The remaining, previously-authorized impacts resulting from this phase will
consist of 292 If of perennial stream and 0.37 acre of wetlands.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
No additonal phasing that will result in future jurisdictional impacts is proposed.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps- 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ®P ? T Fill placement Scrub-shrub ? Yes
® No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.33
® Yes ® Corps
W2 ®P ? T Fill placement Forested
? No
® DWQ 0.04
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? PEI T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? PEI T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.37
2h. Comments: No additional wetland impacts will occur as a result of this project.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Culvert UT to Coddle ® PER ® Corps 6 292
Creek ? INT ® DWQ
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ® Corps
? INT ® DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 292
3i. Comments: No additonal stream impacts will occur as a result of this project.
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T I
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
411 Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: No open water impacts will occur as a result of this project.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to on-site jurisdictional areas while maintaining its economic viability.
These avoidance measures allowed the project-wide impacts to perennial channels to remain limited to less than 300 If, and
project-wide wetlands impacts to less than 0.5 acre. Some of the measures that were originally undertaken during the
planning phase include: 1) avoiding impacts to Coddle Creek entirely through use of a bridge crossing that completely spans
the creek, eliminating the need for culverts or other structures in the channel; 2) Marketable high ground located between
Coddle Creek and Interstate 85 was left undisturbed, eliminating the need for additional stream impacts; 3) The public
roadway was shifted northward of its original proposed alignment; and 4) Placement of the roadway as proposed now allows a
significant portion of the affected stream to remain undisturbed. In connection with the original permit submittal process,
S&ME and Childress Klein worked closely through meetings and correspondence to modify the project to avoid all but
necessary impacts, preserve open space, and to utilize the Coddle Creek corridor as a preservation area.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
During construction, sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed in order to comply
with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard. These BMPs shall be consistent with specifications governing their
proper design, installation, operation and maintenance, as outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment
and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and approved by the local governing authority. Impacts have been avoided
and minimized, and appropriate measures will be taken during construction to allow flow and circulation patterns of waters of
the U.S. to remain unaffected.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ® Yes ? No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ® DWQ ® Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
®Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ® Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments: Mitigation credit was purchased for all impacts, both compledted and proposed, in connection with original
permit.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? >24 percent %
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, na rrative description of the plan:
A complete Stormwater Management Permit Application was submitted to DWQ in connection with the original permit
application. Portions of the plan implemented to date include construction of permanent water quality basins on the east
side of Coddle Creek. The system was designed to collect all stormwater run-off drai ning from the post-developed site,
including run-off from the roadway. The network of stormwater collection and convey ance devices direct all stormwater to
the forebays of the permanent water quality basins. Implementation of the plan for the undeveloped portions of the site
(west of Coddle Creek) will commence in conjunction with site development.
® Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Concord
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been _
LIY
N
attached? o
es
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ? Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (if so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes
? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
No imapcts beyond those associated with the original application are proposed. The project is part of a sinle and
complete development and not designed to induce growth.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Municipal sanitary sewer.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?
F1 Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
ill
® A
h
ev
e
s
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The USFWS will be copied on this PCN. The project area and vicinity are not located in a Designated Critical Habitat.
Review of Element Occurrences on the NCNHP geographic Information Systems (GIS) Virtual Workroom found that there
were no recorded occurrences of federally-listed species within a two-mile radius of the project area.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/efh-coral/ims/viewer.htm
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of the property was conducted by TRC, Inc. in 2005. The survey
indicated that most of the property consisted of eroded soils unlikely to contain any significant archaeological resources.
Although several landforms along Coddle Creek appeared to have potential for archaeological sites, examination these
portions of the project area revealed that the topsoil was depleted and no archaeological remains were encountered.
Based on the results of the reconnaissance survey, TRC concluded that it was unlikely that any historic properties would
be affected by project, and recommended that no additional cultural resource investigations were necessary.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Unconstructed portions of the proposed project will be
constructed outside of the 100-year FEMA floodplain.
Joey Lawler, PWS 04.30.10

Applican E95 Printed Name Applic ignature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided )
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
*SWWJ% LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
TO ACT AS AGENT WITH
ENGJNEERI 0 . TESTING HS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
EIVV1 0NM 7v ERVICES
Date: r _C6 S&YM Project Name: Crisco Road Development
Type of Project: Nationwide Permit
Location; Crisco Road and Interstate 85, Cabs= County, NC
Property Owner/Representative Infartraation
Business Name.
Mailing Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
in Properties
2800
Charlotte, NC 28202
704.342.9000
Steve
Agent Information
Business Name: S&ME, Inc.
Street Address: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
City, State, Zip Code: Charlotte, NC 28273 Attn: Joey Lawler
Telephone No, [phone]
Authorization:
I on behalf of
(Codtict Signature)
c4fllarrss hKV far rl Phemby authorize
(Name of Landowner or Representative)
S&Mfi, Inc. to act as agent for wetlands permitting on the above-
referenced project.
I0/10 39Vd LBEVEKOOL TZ:LO 508Z/80/90
Appendix II:
Copies of Previous NWP/401 Certification Letters
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ! p
WILMINGTON DISTRICT U?
Action ID. 200431226 County: Cabamis USGS Quad: Kannapolis
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Childress Klein Properties, Attn: Mr. Steve Hoots
Address: 2800 One Wachovia Center, 301 South College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone No.: 704-342-9000
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): Proposed 272-acre Kannapolis Parkway
commercial/industrial development northwest of the intersection of Interstate 85 and Kannapolis Parkway adjacent to
Coddle Creek and unnamed tributaries north of Kannapolis.
Description of projects area and activity: Fill 0.38 acres of wetland, 292 linear feet of important stream channel and 1018
linear feet of unimportant stream channel for general lot and infrastructure development at four sites (one on the west side
of Coddle Creek and three on the east side). Construct a spanning bridge across Coddle Creek with no impacts to surface
waters. SPECIAL CONDITION: The permittee shall mitigate for unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands
associated with this project by payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), In-
Lieu-Fee Administrator, in an amount determined by the NCEEP, sufficient to perform 0.76 acres of riparian
wetland restoration and 644 linear feet of warm water stream restoration within Cataloging Unit 03040105 of the
Yadkin River Basin. Construction within jurisdictional streams and wetlands shall begin only after the permittee
has made full payment to the NCEEP and the NCEEP has provided written confirmation to the Corps that it
agrees to accept responsibility for the required mitigation work in compliance with the current MOU between the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
? Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Numbers: 39
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the NWP is modified, reissued or revoked prior to March 18, 2007. It is incumbent upon
you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you
commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide permit is modified or revoked,
you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP to complete the activity under the
present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit
authorized is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it
complies with all new and/or modified terms and conditions. The District Engineer may, at any time, exercise his discretionary
authority to modify, suspend or revoke a case specific activity's authorization under any NWP.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits,
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Steven Lund at telephone [phone] x 223.
Corps Regulatory Official: Steven Lund tJ i Date: 9/26/2005
Expiration Date of Verification: 3/18/2007
Page 1 of 2
Determination of Jurisdiction:
Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above described project area.
This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process
( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 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 waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area 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.
X The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please reference
jurisdictional determination issued 7/19/2004, Action 1D 200431226.
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: See referenced Jurisdictional Determination of 7/19/2004.
Corps Regulatory Official: Steven Lund
Date: 9/26/2005
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Fumished:
Mr. Joey Lawler
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273-5560
Page 2 of 2
?0r cyQ
G Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and_Natuml Resources

p Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
July. 3, 2005
DWQ# 05-1068
Cabarrus County
Project Manager
Childress Klein Properties
2800 One Wachovia Center
310 South College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject: Crisco Road Site, Kannapolis Pkwy.
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetlands Permit with Additional Conditions
Dear Sir or Madam:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill 0.04 acre of isolated wetland,
0.37 acre of other wetland, and. 1310 linear feet (If) (1047 If perennial) of stream in order to.construct the
proposed commercial development in Cabarrus County, as described in your application received by the
Division of Water Quality on June 15, 2005. After reviewing your application, we have determined this activity
is covered by General Certification 3402 and by the State General Permit for Impacts to Isolated Wetlands-and
Isolated Waters (IWGP100000). The General Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 39
once it is issued to you by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please note that you should get any other
federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited
to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certification will expire when the associated 404 permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the. General Certification. This approval is only valid for.the purpose and design that you described
in your application. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be required to send
us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the
Certification and approval letter; and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions.
In addition to the requirements of the. certification, you must also comply with the following conditions:
1. The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing once construction at the approved impact areas
has commenced.
2. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall. be placed an all lots with remaining jurisdictional wetlands and
waters or areas within 50 feet of all streams and ponds on the property. These mechanisms shall be put in
place within 30 days of the date of this letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later).. A sample
deed notification format can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands.
3. All wetlands, streams, surface waters, and riparian buffers located on the project site where impacts are not
allowed shall be clearly marked (example- orange fabric fencing) prior to. any land disturbing activities.
1c" caro ina
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 Fast Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Phone [phone] Customer service
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc us FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Afruntative Action Employer- 50°/6 Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
4. We understand that you have chosen to contribute to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP),in order
to compensate for the impacts to the streams and wetlands. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R .0402 and
15A NCAC..2&.0242(7), this contribution will satisfy our compensatory mitigation requirements under' .15A
NCAC 2H .0601i.(h) and 15A NCAC 2B .0233(10). Until the EEP receives and clears your check (made
payableto,; DENR- Ecosystem Enhancement Program), the stream and wetland impacts shall not.occur.
Ms Carol Shaw should be contacted at'[phone] if you have any questions conceming;.the EEP. You
fiave orle month from the date of this Certification to make this payment: For accounting purposes, this .
Certifieatib'nfauthorizes the fill of 0.41 acre of wetland and 10471inear feet of perennial streams in the-Yadkin-
Pee Dee River Basin, (Cataloging Unit 03040105); and 1047 linear feet of stream mitigation is required.
Please be aware that the EEP rules require rounding of stream impacts to the nearest footand`wetland-
impacts to the nearest quarter acre (15A NCAC 2R.0503(b)).
5. The planting of native vegetation and other soft stre'ambank stabilization techniques must be-t sed where-
' practicable instead of riprap or other bank hardening methods. If riprap is necessary, it shall not be placed in
the streambed, unless approved by the DWQ.
6.. 5tormwater discharge structures >t this. site shall be: constructed in a..manner such .that>the potential receiving
streams (of the discharge) will not, be impacted due to sediment accumulations, scouring or erosion of the
stream banks.
7.:A fjnal=vl±nttenatormwater managemen#.p.Ian:shall; beapproved., in;wntingby this Office:,Dnorto_the -.•'
construc#ion;of,any .permanent.,
aailiti ;'dt:the:site. ;Thwstormwaterfacilities'must be de'signedFto treat the
runoff:frorn the entire Project, unless otherwise explicitly approved. by the::Division of Water Quality: Also: .
before any permanent building. Is-occupied_at-the,site,?ahe facilities (as :approved by:.this' Offce)_sf all be
constructed,and:operational;, and?thestormwater?management-plan:(as•approved.by-this;Office'phaltbe
implemented The.structural:stormwater.practices as approved by this Office as:weltas=-idrainage-.patterns: .
mustbe:mamtair?ed?in perpetuity,: No changes to the structural stoTmwater facilities shall be made without
writt en au . onzation,from the. Division .of Water;Quality.
8. No waste, spoils, solids, or fill of any kind shall be placed in wetlands, waters, or .riparian areas beyond the
footprinhof.theJrnpacts depicted.1h?,th&Preconstruction-Notifcation-application1'All construction activities
associated:with. :`this? project shall meet; ahd/or exceed, those requirements specifled: 6the`most recent
verslon of the North Carolina Zedimerit and 1Erosion-Control, Manual and shall be,conducted so thatfho
.violations.of.stat&,waterquality standaeds,statutes, or-rules occur.
9. Sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicMle: _If placement af'seldiment anti erosion control devices in wetlands and w s is unavoidable,
they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within two months of the date the Division of Land
"1 - 1..:. .f.. .
Resources has released `the prdj t
10. Upon completion of the praject, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed. ".Certificate of
Cornpietion?'? for'rn? to'the'4'0' .We0aiids Uhit of the 'NC'DivWdh:of Watee'Quality = `Please send'' /ioto ra hs of
,
'lr .
Elie `clpstreamrandldownstream ;sides' of`each'culverf site fo document correct nsfallafion '_alon` `-with-fite
ate •of Completron=form: - - ??-? •
11. Continuing Compliance. The applicant (Childress Klein Properties) shall -c onduct-its-6ctivities1n a manner' so
as not to contravene any state water quality standard (including any requirements for compliance with section
303(4)` oftf `Clean'Water Act) and?any otYi'er appropriate requirements of''st M and federal'll If DWQ`
determines tha#Esdcli standards`o'r laws ar8 not being'met (including'the"M 117 re to"sustain a`d signatea or
achieved use) or that state or federal law Is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure
compliance, DWQ may reevaluate and modify this certification to.include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before
codifying the, certification, D.W.Q shall. notify the applicant and the US Army, Corps..of Engineers, provide public
notice in, accordance with 15A NCAC.2N.0503,,and. provide opportuni.ty'for public hearing._in accordance with
15A NCAG 2H.050.4. Any.new or revised conditions shall be provided to the applicant in writing, shall. be
provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issued pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that
conforms to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and. its conditions are final, and binding unless
you'ask fora hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-
1699 or Ms. Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
Sincerely,
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands Unit
Tony Johnson, Cabarrus County
Central Files
Joe Lawler, SM 8 E
Appendix III:
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: NC County/parish/borough: CABARRUS City: CONCORD
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.416° N, Long. 80.683° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT TO CODDLE CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: CODDLE CREEK
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 030401050106
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 5010 linear feet: CODDLE CREEK = 30, STEAM I = 5 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: < 0.37 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: .
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION M: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section HI.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IH.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.L; otherwise, see Section HIM below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.I for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and oflsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: square miles
Drainage area: acres
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth:. feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/%cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime: seasonal.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: Hydric soil in channel bed.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Unknown.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: .
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):Undisturbed hardwood forest.
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 100%.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland likley provide amphibian
habitat, pollutant removal and water stroage.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 11I.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: See attached Stream Classification and Stream Quality Assessment worksheets.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: 5010 linear feet CODDLE CREEK = 30, STREAM 1 = 5 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TN W is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
C] Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: VISUAL OBSERVATION.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 4.3 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section II1.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED (INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):ta
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section I]1D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps(EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Q Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the )an 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: See attcahed figures.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
[? Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad nameXANNAPOLIS, NC.
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: CABARRUS COUNTY.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date): Site Photgraphs taken.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: DWQ Stream Evaluation Forms, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms and
Routine Wetland Determination Forms submitted to USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office on 2.24.2004.
Appendix IV:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Letter
and Copy of Payment Check
VOICE
September 16, 2005
DWQO: 05-1068
COE#: 20043111
Stove !loots
Childress Mein Properties
2800 One Wachovia Center
310 South College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Project Crisco Road Sir. County: Cabamts
You have elected to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements of the Section 401/404 permit issued for the above
reference project through payment of a fee to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. In accordance with 15A
NCAC 21.0500, your fee has been calculated as follows (Please note: payment of wr4ands is calculated in increments of
0.25 acres). If you have any questions concerning dds payment, please call Carol Shaw at 919-733-5205.
Riparian Wetlands
Non-Riparian Wetlands
Saltwater Weiland
Stream
Buffer - Zone 1
Buffer - Zone 2
Total amount of payment
1.0 acres tt $ 26,246.00 = $ 26,246.00
0 acres x $ 13,123.00 = S
0 acres x $131,230.00 = $
1,047 linear feet x $ 219.00 = 5229,293.00
0 square feet x $ .96 S
0 square feet : S .96 =
$255,539.00
Please mail a check made payable to
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program for the total amount due to rh` address balow.
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
IUdcigk'NC 27699-1652
Please note that a payment made to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement program is not reimbursable unless a request for
reimbursement is received within 12 months of the date of the retx(pt, Any suoh request trust be accompanied by (oasts
from the permitting agencies stating that the permit and/or authorization have been rescinded.
YOU MUST BE IN POSSESSION OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM PROUL TO COMMENCING THE ACTIVITIES AUMOR1ZED BY THR
DEPARTMENT OF ARMY PERMIT AND/OR THE 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION.
cc: Steve Chapin. USACE - Asheville
Rt stOYGK?J ... .. Prot" Our Stab,
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, NC 27889-7652 / 919-715-0478 / www.nceep.net
Personal Account Information Redacted