20201223 Ver 1_Individual_20201118

Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
r Yes r No
ID#*
20201223
Version* 1
Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Sue Homewood:eads\slhomewood
Select Reviewing Office:* Winston-Salem Regional Office - [phone]
Submittal Type:* Individual
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
For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
r
New Project
r
Modification/New Project with Existing ID
r
More Information Response
r
Other Agency Comments
r
Pre -Application Submittal
r
Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
r
Stream or Buffer Appeal
Pre -Filing Meeting Information
Before submitting this form please ensure you have submitted the Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form as we will not
be able to accept your application without this important first step. The Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form is used in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 121.4(a) "At least 30 days prior to submitting a certification request, the project
proponent shall request a pre -filing meeting with the certifying agency" and in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section
121.5(b)(7), and (c)(5) all certification requests shall include documentation that a pre -filing meeting request was
submitted to the certifying authority at least 30 days prior to submitting the certification request. Click here to read
more information on when this form is needed prior to application submission or here to view the form.
Attach documentation of Pre -Filing Meeting Request here:
DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf 56.33KB
Date for Meeting Request 10/1/2020
ID# Version
Project Contact Information
Name: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Who is subrritting the inforrration?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Project Name: North Point - Gastonia Logistics Center
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)
Gaston
Please upload all files that need to be submited.

click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
00_NP_Gastonia IP (SAW-2020-
34.45MB
00836)_20200930.pdf
Only pdf or kmz files are accepted.
Describe the attachments
or comments:
The Pre -Filing request was submitted on 9/23 for this project; however, a confirmation email indicating the 30
day clock had been reached was not received. Please accept the attached Individual 401 Water Quality
Certification request and review at your convenience. If you have any questions or comments please do not
hesitate to call or email me directly.
Thank you,
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Sign and Submit
W By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
■ I, the project proponent, hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
■ I, the project proponent, hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401
certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
■ I agree that submission of this online 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');
■ 1 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:
Submittal Date: Is filled in automatically.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Form Approved -
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB No. 0710-0003
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Expires: 02-28-2022
The public reporting burden for this collection of information, OMB Control Number 0710-0003, is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services,
at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections(a)mail.mil. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall
be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT
RETURN YOUR APPLICATION TO THE ABOVE EMAIL.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form
will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and
local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission of requested information
is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings or good
reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and/or instructions)
and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
System of Record Notice (SORN). The information received is entered into our permit tracking database and a SORN has been completed (SORN #A1145b)
and may be accessed at the following website: http�//d//dpcld defense gov/Privacy/SORNslndex/DOD-wide-SORN-Article-View/Article/570115/a1145b-ce asp
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Ian Middle - Last - McDonald
First - Chris Middle - Last - Tinklenberg
Company - NorthPoint Development, LLC
Company - Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
E-mail [e-mail]
E-mail Address -Chris. [e-mail]
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 4825 NW 41st Street, No. 500
Address- 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
City - Riverside State - MO Zip - 64150 Country -USA
City - Charlotte State - NC Zip - 28202 Country -USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
816-384-2292
704-409-1802
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
2020-09-21
IGNA E OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
NorthPoint Gastonia Logistics Center
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Address Lineberger Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
City - Gastonia and Lowell State- NC Zip- 28056
Latitude: -N 35.268731 Longitude: -W-81.115133
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID Multiple Municipality
Section - Township - Gastonia, South Point Range -
ENG FORM 4345, FEB 2019 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Charlotte, head northwest on I-277 North onto NC-16 North. Continue for two miles then turn left onto I-85 South toward Gastonia.
Continue for 13.7 miles and take exit 22 toward Cramerton/Lowell. Turn right onto South Main Street and then turn left onto West 1st Street.
Continue onto Lowell Road, and turn left onto Lineberger Road.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
See attached narrative.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
See attached narrative.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The proposed project includes the construction of eight (8) distribution center warehouses, as well as associated access roads, parking,
utilities, and stormwater management facilities. Due to the size of the warehouse buildings, the location and layout of these facilities were
limited to areas within the property where larger development clusters could be created. Areas were chosen that maximize the use of uplands
and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent practicable.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Structural Fill/Earthen Material - 100,057 cy
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 1.18 (Wetlands)
or
Linear Feet 700 (Streams)
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
See attached narrative.
ENG FORM 4345, FEB 2019 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ® No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
*Additional Adjoining
a. Address- 917 Railroad Street Owner: Duncan, Jeanne Marshall Property Owners are
included in the attached
City - Lowell State - NC Zip - 28098 supplemental list
b. Address- 913 Railroad Street
city - Lowell
c. Address- 911 Railroad Street
city - Lowell
d. Address- 903 Railroad Street
city - Lowell
e. Address- 205 S Clay Street
city - Lowell
Owners: Ward, Ray D and Gwen
State - NC Zip - 28098
Owner: Martin, Karen J
State - NC Zip - 28098
Owners:Grotz, Celia L & Jensen, Scott
State - NC Zip - 28098
Owner: Millsaps, Marilyn V
State - NC Zip - 28098
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
2020-09-21 2020-09-17
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, FEB 2019 Page 3 of 3

Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners — Supplemental List
f. 723 PERKINS ST
LOWELL, NC 28098
Owner: Graham, Linda
g. Parcel 127821; No assigned address
Owner: Lovett, Kelsey H
h. 519 ETHELYN AVE
LOWELL, NC 28098
Owner: Heffner, Crystal
i. 517 ETHELYN AVE
LOWELL, NC 28098
Owner: Rimmer, Jacqueline Hawks
j. 912 LAKEVIEW DR
LOWELL, NC 28098
Owner: McCuen, Teresa A
k. Parcel 216857; No assigned address
Owner: Mitchem, Rebecca B
I. Parcel 128454; No assigned address
Owner: Jackson, H Edward
m. Parcel 128453; No assigned address
Owner: Jackson, H Edward
n. Parcel 128580; No assigned address
Owner: City of Gastonia
o. 2701 ABERDEEN BLVD
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: Capitala Private Investments, LLC
p. Parcel 137846; No assigned address
Owner: B B C Company
q. 3051 ABERDEEN BLVD
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: B B C Company
r. 624 SCALYBARK RD
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owners: Sexton, Carolyn Watkins & Farmer, Margaret W and Other

s. Parcel 137866; No assigned address
Owner: Woods, Deborah S
t. 630 LOG CABIN DR
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: Woods, Deborah S
u. Parcel 137875; No assigned address
Owner: Barrett, Gerald Heirs
v. 3273 MILLSTONE DR
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: Mejia, Ricardo Javier
w. 901 DONALDS DR
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: Hoffman, James Alexander Jr
x. 918 CLINE PARK DR
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: Fair Oaks, LLC
y. 513 LINEBERGER RD
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: Crawford Dorothy & Neal F. Jr
z. 517 LINEBERGER RD
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owners: Graham Rosalind & Crawford, Georgia E Heirs
aa. 523 LINEBERGER RD
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: Crawford, Donald
bb. 529 LINEBERGER RD
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owners: Henderson, Tony Glen & Patricia Ann
cc. Parcel 127811; No assigned address
Owner: Hall, Gail Rogers
dd. 611 LINEBERGER RD
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: Pendleton, James Eric Jr.
ee. Parcel 127816; No assigned address
Owner: Hall, Gail Rogers

ff. 519 EAST DR
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owner: Hall, Gail Rogers
gg. Parcel 127818; No assigned address
Owner: Hall, Gail Rogers
hh. Parcel 301137; No assigned address
Owner: Rogers, Verlin
ii. 513 EAST DR
GASTONIA, NC 28054
Owners: Caldwell, Melvin Dean &Angela Denise

NorthPoint — Gastonia
Logistics Center
SECTION 404 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 2020
Applicant: NorthPoint Development, LLC
Agent: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Engineer: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
joNorfWoint'Kimley 3)) Horn
DEVELOPMENT

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1
2.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................1
3.0 PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED.........................................................................................................3
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................3
5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT & DEVELOPMENT PLAN...........................................................................3
6.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................4
6.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................................................5
6.2 Off -Site Alternatives............................................................................................................5
6.2.1 Applicant's Preferred Site
6.2.2 Off -Site Alternative 1 ........
6.2.3 Off -Site Alternative 2........
6.2.4 Off -Site Alternative 3........
6.2.5 Off -Site Alternative 4........
6.2.6 Off -Site Alternative 5........
6i
6.3 On -Site Configurations........................................................................................................8
6.3.1 On -Site Configuration 1........................................................................................................8
6.3.2 On -Site Configuration 2........................................................................................................9
6.3.3 On -Site Configuration 3 (Applicant's Preferred)..................................................................9
6.4 Alternatives Not Practicable or Reasonable.........................................................................9
6.5 Review of Practicable Alternatives....................................................................................11
6.5.1 Proposed Action or Applicant's Preferred Alternative/ On -Site Configuration 3 .............
12
6.5.2 Alternative Site#2...............................................................................................................
12
6.5.3 On -Site Configuration #1....................................................................................................
13
6.5.4 On -Site Configuration #2....................................................................................................
14
6.6 Summary of Alternatives Analysis.....................................................................................15
7.0 THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES...................................................................................
17
8.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................
17
9.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................
17
10.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION...................................................................................................
18
11.0 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................
18
C(0')NorthPo- Kimley)>)Horn
_D F V E L 0 P M E N T

APPENDIX:
A: Figures/Site Maps
B: USACE Jurisdictional Determination
C: Permit Drawings (Applicant's Preferred Alternative)
D: Off -Site Alternatives Information
E: On -Site Configurations
F: Compensatory Mitigation
G: USFWS Survey Report
H: NCSHPO HPOWeb Public Database Information
I: NC Clearinghouse Correspondence
C(0')Noi1hPo- Kimley)>)Horn
_D F V E L 0 P M E N T

1
NorthPoint — Gastonia Logistics Center
Project Description
September 2020
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NorthPoint Development, LLC is proposing the construction of a large-scale, master -planned
industrial logistics center in Gaston County, North Carolina. The project area totals approximately
350 acres located between Interstate 85 and West 1st Street in Gastonia and Lowell, Gaston
County, NC (35.268731 ° N,-81.1151330 W). The project is located approximately 1.75 miles from
1-85, 8.8 miles from 1-485, and 11 miles from the Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT).
The proposed project will include eight distribution center warehouses, ranging from 203,840 (SF)
to 1,300,000 SF. Associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater management
facilities are also proposed as a part of this development. The project proposes impacts to 1.18-
acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 700 linear feet (LF) of jurisdictional streams.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The south/southeast United States demands around 32% of the national need for new industrial,
warehouse, and distribution center space, which translates into approximately 80 million SF of
traditional demand and approximately 160 million SF of projected demand (Meyer, Craig S.,
Jones Lang and Lasalle, 2020 Industrial Demand Study, September 2020). This growth may
accelerate even more in the south and southeast, which leads the nation in population growth
(Census.gov; ncdemography.org). Charlotte, for example, has seen its total industrial,
warehouse, and distribution space demands more than double in the past 5 years (Jones Lang
and LaSalle, Charlotte Industrial Market Report, Q2 2020). Where demand was approximately
8-9 million SF in 2019, it is anticipated to grow to 16-18 million SF annually over the next decade
(CBRE, Industrial & Logistics Insights Panel, "Impact of Covid-19 on Future Industrial
Demand", May 28, 2020, Breeze, James; Meyer, Craig S., Jones Lang and Lasalle, 2020
Industrial Demand Study, September 2020). The problem is that the supply of products is not
keeping up with the projected demand, particularly within the Charlotte region.
Currently, the Charlotte warehouse market is sitting just above a 4% vacancy rate. (Cushman &
Wakefield, US Industrial Report, Q1 2020) For functional space that can accommodate current
material handling equipment, the vacancy rate is lower, closer to 2%. (Cushman & Wakefield,
Industrial Insights - Charlotte, NC, Q1 2020) For new projects that are either under construction
or are planned, the total anticipated new inventory is less than 10 million SF in the Charlotte
market. (Jones Lang and Lasalle, Charlotte Industrial Market Report, Q3 2020) This means
that there will not be enough supply to accommodate demand over the next 12 months. There is
increasing concern that supply cannot meet demand over the next 2 years, much less the next
decade.
C(0')NorthPo- Kimley)>)Horn
_D F V E L 0 P M E N T

Considering the projected needs for the southeast United States industrial market, the applicant
determined that Gaston County —and more specifically Gastonia —was the most appropriate
project location for the following reasons:
• Proximity to Interstate 1-85
• Proximity to a major interchange for access to a major highway/interstate in the Charlotte
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
• Proximity to CLT and Intermodal Center
• Gaston County provides a large supply of qualified labor pool
• The City of Gastonia, in conjunction with the Town of Lowell and Gaston County, intends
to implement the Lineberger Connector Project which includes the design and construction
of a new roadway network and extension of public utilities.
For the Greater Gaston area, the proposed logistics park project will create approximately 3,000-
5,000 direct jobs with an estimated annual payroll of around $150M—$250M. Annual real property
taxes are projected to be roughly $4M at build -out of the park, and an anticipated additional +/-
$1.5M of personal property taxes associated with furniture, fixture, and equipment in the
building. Economic stimulus resulting from the construction of the park will support area
communities to recover from the negative impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and the loss of the textile industry in the region. The project will provide greater
economic mobility of citizens in both Gastonia and Lowell and will stimulate economic growth,
which is desperately needed especially now given the catastrophic economic impacts from the
COVID-19 pandemic. The project not only will result in significant long-term benefits to the
adjacent communities of Gastonia and Lowell, but will also benefit the rural areas of Gaston
County and the metropolitan areas of Charlotte.
The "Lineberger Connector" project, as historically named, is a well-known, previously planned
public connector located within the NorthPoint-Gastonia Logistics Center property. The connector
will provide independent utility to the residents of Gastonia and Lowell that live and work locally.
The connector will decrease travel time for eastbound/westbound users and eliminate cut -through
traffic in adjacent residential communities, providing safer neighborhoods for these residents. In
addition to time savings for residents who may no longer need to commute along 1-85, other
travelers and the freight industry will benefit from the reduced congestion along the interstate.
The "Lineberger Connector" project is currently included in the Gaston -Cleveland -Lincoln
Metropolitan Planning Organization's (GCLMPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and
has been included in the MPO's long-range transportation plans for many years. The project is
currently listed in the GCLMPO's 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for completion in
the 2035 horizon year. The applicant proposes to donate a 60-foot public right-of-way (ROW) to
the City of Gastonia (City), who will fund the design and construction of the public ROW (Aberdeen
Boulevard extension and Lineberger Road Relocation); therefore, authorization to impact aquatic
resources associated with the public ROW will be requested by the City under a separate
Nationwide Permit.
C(0')NorthPo- Kimley)>)Horn
_D F V E L 0 P M E N T

9
3.0 PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED
Generally, the project's purpose is to provide warehousing and supply -chain distribution space to
service Charlotte and the southeastern US and consumers within those areas. Specifically, the
purpose of the proposed project is to construct a large scale master -planned industrial logistics
complex within the Charlotte MSA and 1-85 corridor with connectivity to 1-485, 1-77, and CLT to
accommodate regional supply -chain requirements for Class A distribution and support
warehousing needs associated with the current and anticipated growth of Charlotte MSA and the
southeastern United States.
While this project —with approximately 3.9 million SF represents approximately 10 percent of the
projected 2-year market need —the proposed logistics center will assist with maintaining a healthy
regional market required to support the continued growth of the Charlotte MSA.
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site totals 350 acres and consists of undeveloped forested land. An aquatic resources
delineation was completed within the project site and was verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) on July 15, 2020. The project contains approximately 8.49-acres of wetlands
and 13,215 LF of streams. Land management techniques historically applied to the tract include
primarily timber management. The majority of the timber within the property was harvested in
2014-2016 and since that time has been allowed to naturally regenerate. An early successional
vegetation community consisting of predominately sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), red maple (Acerrubrum), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) cover the majority of the site.
5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT & DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposed project includes the construction of access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater
management facilities. The proposed site plan will be provided access via the future Lineberger
Connector Project which includes the Aberdeen Road extension and Lineberger Road relocation.
The proposed project seeks to construct eight distribution warehouse buildings, ranging from
203,840 SF to 1,300,000 SF and totaling 3,914,512 SF. Truck and employee parking areas are
required at each building. Ten ponds required to satisfy stormwater management needs of the
site are positioned at various locations throughout the project site. Permit drawings depicting the
proposed project are included in Appendix C.
Due to the size of the warehouse buildings, the location and layout of these facilities were limited
to areas within the property where larger, contiguous development clusters could be created. The
applicant chose areas that maximize the use of uplands and minimize impacts to streams and
wetlands to the greatest extent practicable. As shown in the attached permit drawings, the
proposed site plan requires impacts to aquatic resources totaling 700 LF of stream impacts and
1.18 acres of wetland impacts necessary to meet the purpose and need of the project.
The project proposes to be constructed in three phases. Phase I is located in the western portion
of the site and includes buildings 1001 and 1002. Phase 11 is located in the southeastern portion
of the site and includes buildings 2001, 2002, and 2003. Phase III is located in the northern portion
of the site and includes buildings 3001, 3002, and 3003. No impacts are associated with the
construction of Phase 1. Phase 11 proposes 652 LF of stream impacts and 0.25-acre of wetland
C(
)Noll ooitit Kimley>>)Hvrn
__� DEVEL0PMENT

rd
impacts. Phase III proposes 48 LF of stream impacts and 0.93 acre of wetland impacts. The
anticipated build -out of all phases of construction is approximately five years. Considering the
project area of Phase I is geographically separated from Phases II and III, the location and layout
of the Phase I facilities are not dependent upon the remaining project phases (and Phases II and
III are not dependent on Phase 1), and there are no impacts to aquatic resources associated with
this phase, the applicant seeks to move forward on construction of Phase I while permit
authorization is sought for Phases 11 and 111.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
As part of the overall project, the applicant completed a thorough alternatives analysis. A review
of the 404(b)(1) guidelines indicates that "(a) Except as provided under section 404(b)(2), no
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as
the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences." The
guidelines define practicable alternatives as "(q) The term practicable means available and
capable of being constructed after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics
in light of overall project purposes."
The guidelines outline further consideration of practicable alternatives: "(1) For the purpose of this
requirement, practicable alternatives include, but are not limited to: (i) Activities which do not
involve a discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States or ocean waters;
(ii) Discharges of dredged or fill material at other locations in waters of the United States or ocean
waters; (2) An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being constructed after
taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant
which could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose
of the proposed activity may be considered."
Considering the guidelines above and having identified Gaston County as the most advantageous
location for the proposed industrial facility, the applicant evaluated a No Action Alternative and
six alternative sites including the applicant's preferred site. In addition, three on -site configurations
were evaluated including the applicant's preferred on -site configuration. As noted above, the
permit drawings depicting the proposed site plan are provided in Appendix C. Mapping information
for off -site alternatives is provided in Appendix D and on -site configuration alternatives are
provided in Appendix E. As part of this alternative evaluation, the following
"Practicability/Reasonability Screening Selection Criteria" were applied to each alternative to
confirm whether the particular alternative and/or on -site configuration was practicable:
• Capable of being constructed considering cost (Is the cost reasonable considering scope
and type of project considering total cost, funding source, profit margin, etc.)
• Capable of being constructed considering logistics (Must consider existing infrastructure,
traffic patterns, etc.)
• Property can be reasonably obtained (Must consider availability, liens, etc.)
• Property can be reasonably expanded (Must consider the ability to acquire adjacent lands
for expansion.)
• Meets basic project purpose
• Meets overall project purpose
CJO)NorthPoint Kimley)))Horn
D F V E L 0 P M E N T

6.1 No Action Alternative
A "no action" alternative must be considered, and complete avoidance of aquatic resources was
the first alternative considered for this project. Due to the location of aquatic resources and
proposed land use (industrial warehousing), it was determined that complete avoidance of stream
and wetland impacts was not feasible. Unlike many development activities (i.e., residential,
recreational, or light commercial), little flexibility in warehouse design is afforded. Industry
standards dictate building widths and lengths and access, parking, and docking requirements
associated with semi -trailer truck traffic greatly limit design flexibility. For these reasons, major
modifications to the facility footprint beyond a reduction in square footage to the minimum square
feet are not feasible. While this option would result in no impacts to jurisdictional features, it would
not fulfill the need for warehousing distribution space in the Charlotte MSA. Because the "no
action" alternative and complete avoidance of impacts prohibits construction of the proposed
logistics park, this alternative was determined to be unreasonable and not practicable.
6.2 Off -Site Alternatives
In addition to the six general Practicability/ Reasonability Screening Selection Criteria evaluated,
specific criteria including geographic location, size, zoning, utilities, access, and availability were
considered. The following provides a summary of each criterion.
Size — The potential site must be 200 acres or more to accommodate the required
minimum size of the development.
Geographic Location — The proposed project will provide warehousing and logistics
services to Charlotte MSA related clients. Sites considered for this project were limited to
the 1-85 corridor in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties and within 30 miles of CLT and
intermodal center.
Land Use/Zoning — Land use restrictions associated with current zoning are a major
consideration in all industrial projects. Truck traffic, equipment operation, adjoining land
use, buffers, etc. make the location of the project and the current zoning a critical
component. Forthis site screening criterion, tracts that are currently zoned for the intended
use or that could be reasonably re -zoned to accommodate the proposed project were
considered.
Utilities — Utility services or access to utility services (water, sewer, electrical, gas,
phone, cable, etc.) are required. For this reason, the location of existing utilities and the
cost associated with servicing the project site if those utilities were not already available
was a consideration in the site screening criteria.
• Availability — Sites listed for sale and/or known to be available for purchase were
considered.
Access — Access to a warehousing and distribution facility requires the continual
operation of large semi -trailer trucks. For this project, three access criteria were
established. First, the site must provide suitable access to a major interstate. Suitable
access to a major interstate would be defined as direct access to the site from a paved
road suitable to support truck traffic associated with the proposed facility. Second, the site
must be located adjacent to or within two miles of an interstate interchange. For this
project, alternative sites were limited to major interchanges along Interstate 85. Third, the
site must allow for truck access that avoids at -grade rail crossings and/or minimizes at -
grade rail crossing relocations.
6.2.1 Applicant's Preferred Site
)Nor tlroint Kimley)))Horn
__� D F V E L 0 P M E N T

M
The applicant's preferred alternative totals 350 acres located between West 1 st Street and
Interstate 85 in Gaston County. The following provides a summary of each criterion
reviewed for the applicant's preferred site:
• General Screening Criteria: This alternative is capable of being constructed
when considering cost and logistics, the property can be reasonably obtained and
expanded, and the project site meets the basic and overall project purpose.
• Size: The site totals approximately 350 acres which meets the size criteria for the
project.
• Geographic Location: The site is located in Gaston County, is situated
immediately adjacent to 1-85 and within 30 miles of CLT, which does meet the
minimum criteria for the project.
• Land Use/Zoning: The site is currently zoned for the proposed use.
• Utilities: All required utilities are easily extended to the site.
• Availability: The site is currently listed for sale and can be purchased.
• Access: The site is surrounded by paved roads, is less than 2 miles to an 1-85
interchange, and affords truck access that avoids at -grade rail crossings.
In summary, the applicant's preferred site meets all the site screening criteria and is
therefore a practicable alternative.
6.2.2 Off -Site Alternative 1
This tract totals approximately 243.5 acres and is located south of 1-85. The following
provides a summary of each criterion reviewed for the applicant's preferred site:
• General Screening Criteria: The property can be reasonably obtained and
expanded, and the project site meets the basic and overall project purpose;
however, due to the presence of a power transmission line easement bisecting the
linear layout of the site, this alternative is not capable of being constructed when
considering cost and logistics.
• Size: The site totals 243.5 acres which does meet the minimum criteria for the
project.
• Geographic Location: The site is located in Gaston County, is situated
immediately adjacent to 1-85 and within 30 miles of CLT, which does meet the
minimum criteria for the project.
• Land Use/Zoning: The site is not currently zoned for the proposed use, however,
rezoning of the property is assumed to be feasible.
• Utilities: All required utilities are easily extended to the site.
• Availability: The site is currently listed for sale and can be purchased.
• Access: The site is surrounded by paved roads, is less than 2 miles to an 1-85
interchange, and affords truck access that avoids at -grade rail crossings.
In summary, Off -Site Alternative 1 does not meet all the site screening criteria and is
therefore not a practicable alternative.
6.2.3 Off -Site Alternative 2
This tract totals approximately 320 acres and is located north of 1-85. The following
provides a summary of each criterion reviewed for the applicant's preferred site:
• General Screening Criteria: This alternative is capable of being constructed
when considering cost and logistics; the property can be reasonably obtained and
expanded, and the project site meets the basic and overall project purpose.
C(
}1 OMIroult. Kimley)>)Horn
__� D F V E L 0 P M E N T

7
• Size: The site totals 320 acres which does meet the minimum criteria for the
project.
• Geographic Location: The site is located in Gaston County, is situated
immediately adjacent to 1-85 and within 30 miles of CLT, which does meet the
minimum criteria for the project.
• Land Use/Zoning: The site is not currently zoned for the proposed use, however,
rezoning of the property is assumed to be feasible.
• Utilities: All required utilities are easily extended to the site.
• Availability: The site is not currently listed for sale but is known to be available.
• Access: The site is surrounded by paved roads and is less than 2 miles to an 1-85
interchange.
In summary, Off -Site Alternative 2 does meet all the site screening criteria and is therefore
is a practicable alternative.
6.2.4 Off -Site Alternative 3
This tract totals approximately 172 acres and is located along Superior Stainless Rd east
of York Road/ Hwy 321. The following provides a summary of each criterion reviewed for
the applicant's preferred site:
• General Screening Criteria: This alternative is capable of being constructed
when considering cost and logistics; the property can be reasonably obtained and
expanded, and the project site meets the basic and overall project purpose.
• Size: The site totals 172 acres which does not meet the minimum criteria for the
project.
• Geographic Location: The site is located within Gaston County and is within 30
miles of CLT; however, is not within the 1-85 corridor, which does not meet the
minimum criteria for the project.
• Land Use/Zoning: The site is not currently zoned for the proposed use, however,
rezoning of the property is assumed to be feasible.
• Utilities: All required utilities are easily extended to the site.
• Availability: The site is currently listed for sale and can be purchased.
• Access: The site is in proximity to paved roads; however, it is greater than 2 miles
to an 1-85 interchange.
In summary, Off -Site Alternative 3 does not meet all the site screening criteria and is
therefore not a practicable alternative.
6.2.5 Off -Site Alternative 4
This tract totals approximately 283 acres and is located north of 1-85. The following
provides a summary of each criterion reviewed for the applicant's preferred site:
General Screening Criteria: This alternative is capable of being constructed
when considering cost and logistics; the property can be reasonably obtained and
expanded, and the project site meets the basic and overall project purpose.
Size: The site totals 283 acres which does meet the minimum criteria for the
project.
Geographic Location: The site is located in Mecklenburg County, is situated
immediately adjacent to 1-85 and within 30 miles of CLT, which does meet the
minimum criteria for the project.
CID)NorthPoint KimIey�>)Horn
D F V E L 0 P M E N T

• Land Use/Zoning: The site is not currently zoned for the proposed use and cannot
be reasonably re -zoned to accommodate the proposed project. According to the
current owner, the community is opposed to industrial warehouse/distribution land
use for this property.
• Utilities: Most required utilities are easily extended to the site; however, sanitary
sewer is not currently available. A regional lift station must be constructed prior to
the development of the site.
• Availability: The site is currently listed for sale and can be purchased.
• Access: The site is surrounded by paved roads and is less than 2 miles to an 1-85
interchange.
In summary, Off -Site Alternative 4 does not meet all the site screening criteria and is
therefore not a practicable alternative.
6.2.6 Off -Site Alternative 5
This tract totals approximately 328 acres and is located north of 1-85. The following
provides a summary of each criterion reviewed for the applicant's preferred site:
• General Screening Criteria: This alternative is capable of being constructed
when considering cost and logistics; the property can be reasonably obtained and
expanded, and the project site meets the basic and overall project purpose.
• Size: The site totals 328 acres which does meet the minimum criteria for the
project.
• Geographic Location: The site is located in Gaston County, is in the proximity of
the 1-85 corridor and within 30 miles of CLT, which does meet the minimum criteria
for the project.
• Land Use/Zoning: The site is not currently zoned for the proposed use. Based
on the current ownership, it is assumed that the future development of the site will
proceed as a residential community.
• Utilities: All required utilities are easily extended to the site.
• Availability: The site is not currently listed for sale and cannot be purchased.
This site is owned by Pharr via Belmont Land Investment Company who is
proceeding to develop the site as a residential community.
• Access: The existing roadway network is not adequate to handle the required
truck capacity necessary to service a logistics park. The site is in proximity to
paved roads; however, it is greater than 2 miles to an 1-85 interchange.
In summary, Off -Site Alternative 5 does not meet all the site screening criteria and is
therefore not a practicable alternative.
6.3 On -Site Configurations
In addition to considering off -site alternatives, the applicant considered on -site alternatives. The
following provides a summary of each alternative during the design review process.
6.3.1 On -Site Configuration 1
This configuration was the initial site plan reviewed by the applicant and maximizes the
warehousing footprint within the property and provides for the greatest logistical
functionality. The general site plan includes 10 buildings ranging from 203,840 SF to
1,300,000 SF, 15 stormwater detention basins, truck access and parking and employee
parking. The configuration totals 4,138,000 SF of warehouse space. This concept would
impact 2.63-acres of wetlands and 3,038 LF of streams.
CID)NorthPoint Kimley)))Horn
D F V E L 0 P M E N T

A
6.3.2 On -Site Configuration 2
This configuration was reviewed by the applicant in an effort to reduce the overall impact
to aquatic resources. The design includes 9 buildings ranging from 203,840 SF to
1,300,000 SF, 16 stormwater detention basins, truck access and parking and employee
parking. The configuration totals 3,967,440 SF of warehouse space. This concept would
impact 1.6-acres of wetlands and 700 LF of streams.
6.3.3 On -Site Configuration 3 (Applicant's Preferred)
This configuration is the applicant's preferred alternative. The site plan was specifically
designed to minimize impacts to aquatic resources to the greatest extent practicable. The
design includes 8 buildings ranging from 203,840 SF to 1,300,000 SF, 12 stormwater
detention basins, truck access and parking and employee parking. The configuration totals
3,914,512 SF of warehouse space. This concept would impact 1.18 acres of wetlands and
700 LF of streams.
6.4 Alternatives Not Practicable or Reasonable
Following reviews of both off -site alternatives and on -site configurations, the applicant completed
a comparison of alternatives to the practicability/reasonability screening criteria. Table 1 on the
following page summarizes a comparison of each alternative discussed above to the screening
criteria for practicability and reasonableness.
C(O')NorLhPo- Kimley)>)Horn
_D F V E L 0 P M E N T

10
Table 1: Summary Table for Practicability and Reasonableness Screening Selection Criteria
Practicability/
On -Site
Reasonability
Applicant's
On -Site
On -Site
Configuration
No
Screening
Preferred
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
Configuration
Configuration
Alt 3
Action
Selection
Alt 1
Alt 2
(Applicant's
Criteria
Preferred
General
Screening
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Criteria
Size
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Geographic
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Location
Land
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
use/Zoning
Utilities
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Availability
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Access
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Practicable
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Site (Y or N)
JoNorth?oinv Kimlee >>) Horn
DEVELOPMENT Y

11
6.5 Review of Practicable Alternatives
Following a determination of practicable alternatives using the "Practicability/Reasonability
Screening Selection Criteria", the applicant completed an analysis of practicable alternatives to
identify the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative pursuant to 40 CFR 230.7(b)(1).
The purpose of the below analysis is to ensure that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have a less
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem". The applicant evaluated potential environmental impacts
that would result from the construction of the proposed facility. This evaluation was completed by
considering environmental factors that could impact the development of the site. The environmental
factors included:
• Stream Impacts (quantitative) — The estimated linear footage of potential stream impact
was evaluated for each practicable alternative.
• Stream Function (qualitative) — The functional value of potential stream impact areas were
evaluated for each practicable alternative utilizing the most recent version of the North
Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM). Results of the NCSAM assessment include
a qualitative rating of low, medium, or high value based on an overall function class rating
which considers hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions.
• Wetland Impacts (quantitative) — The estimated acreage of potential wetland impact was
evaluated for each practicable alternative.
• Wetland Function (qualitative) — The functional value of potential wetland impact areas
were evaluated for each practicable alternative utilizing the most recent version of the North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). Results of the NCWAM assessment
include a qualitative rating of low, medium, or high value based on an overall function class
rating which considers hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions.
• Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species — A preliminary assessment of each
practicable alternative was conducted to determine the potential occurrence of animal and
plants species (or their preferred habitats) currently listed as threatened or endangered by
state and federal regulations [Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-
1543)]. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation
System (IPaC) database at . ittp://ecos.fws.gov/ipac. database was reviewed to determine
plant and animal species as endangered or threatened for each alternative.
• Cultural Resources — A preliminary assessment of cultural resources was conducted for
each site by reviewing available State Historic Preservation Office information. Potential
impacts to sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places was
noted for each alternative.
• Floodplain Impacts — The estimated acreage of flood plain impact was evaluated for each
practicable alternative.
Considering the assessment criteria above, the applicant evaluated 4 alternatives consisting of
2 alternative sites (including the applicant's preferred site) and 3 alternative on -site configurations
(including the applicant's preferred on -site configuration). The following provides a summary of
each practicable alternative and associated environmental impacts.
ONoftUo- KIIIIIey�>)Horn
DEVELOPMENT

12
6.5.1 Proposed Action or Applicant's Preferred Alternative/On-Site Configuration 3
The applicant's preferred site and the preferred on -site configuration includes 8 buildings
ranging from 203,840 SF to 1,300,000 SF, 10 stormwater detention basins, truck access and
parking, and employee parking. This configuration totals 3,914,512 SF of warehouse space.
The formal aquatic resources delineation documents approximately 8.49-acres of wetland
and 13,215 LF of stream. A summary of the environmental impacts associated with this on -
site configuration is provided below.
• Stream Impacts (quantitative) — The aquatic resources delineation that has been
completed within the project area indicates 700 LF of stream impact be required for the
preferred site and on -site configuration.
• Stream Function (qualitative) — Field reviews of the site indicate that stream buffer
impacts from timber harvesting have resulted in degradation of the on -site streams.
Results of the NCSAM assessment include an overall function class rating of low to
medium for on -site streams.
• Wetland Impacts (quantitative) — The aquatic resources delineation that has been
completed within the project area indicates 1.18-acres of wetland impact be required for
the preferred site and on -site configuration.
• Wetland Function (qualitative) — Field review of the site indicates that the wetland
areas within the property have been impacted by past land management practices
including timber harvesting. The majority of the wetland area within this tract has been
harvested within the past 5 years. The results of the NCWAM assessment include an
overall function class rating of low to medium for on -site wetlands.
• Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species — Based on a review of the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) System and the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database, no federally listed species
are known to occur within this site or proximity of the site. Pedestrian surveys were
conducted in April and September 2020. No individuals of listed species or critical habitat
associated with a listed species observed during the pedestrian surveys; therefore, the
project will have "no effect" on federally listed species as a result of this project.
• Cultural Resources — Upon review of the North Carolina Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office's (NCSHPO) HPOWeb online
database and correspondence from NCSHPO, the property contains a National Register -
eligible historic site. Per NCSHPO's recommendation, the applicant has contracted with
an experienced archaeological consultant to conduct the recommended survey. The
results of the survey will be provided to the USACE and NCSHPO once the survey is
complete.
• Floodplain Impacts — Based on a review of available FEMA maps, impacts to FEMA-
regulated floodplains are not anticipated by the proposed project.
6.5.2 Alternative Site #2
Alternative Site 2 includes seven buildings ranging from 203,840 SF to 1,300,000 SF, five
stormwater detention basins, truck access and parking, and employee parking. This
configuration totals 3,658,080 SF of warehouse space. The NWI indicates that the 320-acre
project site contains 4.98 acres of wetlands. The NHD/Lidar desktop assessment indicates
that the project site contains 6,565 LF of stream. A summary of the environmental impacts
associated with this on -site configuration is provided below.
ONord+oftit
Kimley)>>Horn
DEVELOPMENT

13
• Stream Impacts (quantitative) — Based on the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
flowlines and desktop lidar stream assessment, approximately 3,689 LF of stream would
be impacted by this alternative.
Stream Function (qualitative) — A review of current and historical aerial photography
indicates that the property has been utilized for agricultural purposes including row crops
and livestock. Typically, livestock, particularly cattle, that have full access to surface
waters result in severe degradation of channel bed and banks. Additionally, it appears
that stream buffer areas have been cleared and several streams appear straightened.
For these reasons, the functional value of the streams that would be impacted by this
alternative are assigned a low to medium value based on the assumed results of an
NCSAM assessment.
Wetland Impacts (quantitative) — Based on the NWI, approximately 3.0-acres of
wetland would be impacted by this alternative.
Wetland Function (qualitative) — A review of current and historical aerial photography
indicates that the property has been utilized for agricultural purposes including row crops
and livestock. Typically, livestock, particularly cattle, that have full access to surface
waters result in severe degradation to the soil, water quality, and vegetation. For these
reasons, the functional value of the wetlands that would be impacted by this alternative
are assigned a low to medium value based on the assumed results of an NCWAM
assessment.
• Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species — Based on a review of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife IPaC and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database, no federally listed species are known to occur within this site or proximity of
the site. Based on the location of the tract and site conditions, no adverse impacts to
federally listed threatened and endangered species would be expected.
• Cultural Resources — Upon review of the NCSHPO's HPOWeb online database, the
property contains a National Register -eligible historic site that may be adversely affected
by this alternative. A cultural/archeological survey would be required for this alternative.
• Floodplain Impacts — Based on a review of available FEMA maps, impacts to FEMA-
regulated floodplains are not anticipated by the proposed project.
6.5.3 On -Site Configuration #1
On -Site Configuration #1 includes eight buildings ranging from 203,840 SF to 1,300,000 SF,
10 stormwater detention basins, truck access and parking, and employee parking. This
configuration totals 3,914,512 SF of warehouse space. The formal aquatic resources
delineation documents approximately 8.49 acres of wetland and 13,215 LF of stream. A
summary of the environmental impacts associated with this on -site configuration is provided
below.
• Stream Impacts (quantitative) — The aquatic resources delineation that has been
completed within the project area indicates 3,038 LF of stream would be impacted by this
configuration.
• Stream Function (qualitative) — Field reviews of the site indicate that stream buffer
impacts from timber harvesting have resulted in degradation of the on -site streams.
Results of the NCSAM assessment include an overall function class rating of low to
medium for on -site streams.
ONoy-Moftlt Klmrey)>) Horn
DEVELOPMENT

14
• Wetland Impacts (quantitative) — The aquatic resources delineation that has been
completed within the project area indicates 2.63-acres of wetland would be impacted by
this configuration.
• Wetland Function (qualitative) — Field review of the site indicates that the wetland
areas within the property have been impacted by past land management practices
including timber harvesting. The majority of wetland areas within this tract have been
harvested within the past 5 years. The results of the NCWAM assessment include an
overall function class rating of low to medium for on -site wetlands.
• Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species — Based on a review of the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC System and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database, no federally listed species are known to occur within this site or
proximity of the site. Pedestrian surveys were conducted in April and September 2020.
No individuals of listed species or critical habitat associated with a listed species observed
during the pedestrian surveys; therefore, the project will have "no effect" on federally
listed species as a result of this project.
• Cultural Resources — Upon review of the North Carolina Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office's (NCSHPO) HPOWeb online
database and correspondence from NCSHPO, the property contains cultural and/or
archaeological sites. Per NCSHPO's recommendation, the applicant has contracted with
an experienced archaeological consultant to conduct the recommended survey. The
results of the survey will be provided to the USACE and NCSHPO once the survey is
complete.
• Floodplain Impacts — Based on a review of available FEMA maps, impacts to FEMA-
regulated floodplains are not anticipated by the proposed project.
6.5.4 On -Site Configuration #2
On -Site Configuration #2 includes eight buildings ranging from 203,840 SF to 1,300,000 SF,
10 stormwater detention basins, truck access and parking, and employee parking. This
configuration totals 3,914,512 SF of warehouse space. The formal aquatic resources
delineation documents approximately 8.49 acres of wetland and 13,215 LF of stream. A
summary of the environmental impacts associated with this on -site configuration is provided
below.
• Stream Impacts (quantitative) — The aquatic resources delineation that has been
completed within the project area indicates 700 LF of stream would be impacted by this
configuration.
• Stream Function (qualitative) — Field reviews of the site indicate that stream buffer
impacts from timber harvesting have resulted in degradation of the on -site streams.
Results of the NCSAM assessment include an overall function class rating of low to
medium for on -site streams.
• Wetland Impacts (quantitative) — The aquatic resources delineation that has been
completed within the project area indicates 1.6 acres of wetland would be impacted by
this configuration.
ONoftUo- KlIllrey)>)Horn
DEVELOPMENT

15
• Wetland Function (qualitative) — Field review of the site indicates that the wetland
areas within the property have been impacted by past land management practices
including timber harvesting. The majority of wetland areas within this tract have been
harvested within the past 5 years. The results of the NCWAM assessment include an
overall function class rating of low to medium for on -site wetlands.
• Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species — Based on a review of the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC System and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database, no federally listed species are known to occur within this site or
proximity of the site. Pedestrian surveys were conducted in April and September 2020.
No individuals of listed species or critical habitat associated with a listed species observed
during the pedestrian surveys; therefore, the project will have "no effect" on federally
listed species as a result of this project.
• Cultural Resources — Upon review of the North Carolina Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office's (NCSHPO) HPOWeb online
database and correspondence from NCSHPO, the property contains cultural and/or
archaeological sites. Per NCSHPO's recommendation, the applicant has contracted with
an experienced archaeological consultant to conduct the recommended survey. The
results of the survey will be provided to the USACE and NCSHPO once the survey is
complete.
• Floodplain Impacts — Based on a review of available FEMA maps, impacts to FEMA-
regulated floodplains are not anticipated by the proposed project.
6.6 Summary of Alternatives Analysis
When comparing the practicable alternatives, the Applicant's Preferred Alternative requires less
stream and wetland impacts. When considering environmental impacts, the Applicant's Preferred
Alternative represents the least environmentally damaging alternative. Table 2 provides a summary
of the practicable alternatives and the values for each factor.
ONoftUo- KlIllrey}>)Horn
DEVELOPMENT

16
Table 2: Summary of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative Assessment
FACTORS
Preferred Alternative &
Configuration
Alternative Site # 2
On -Site Configuration Alt 1
On -Site Configuration Alt 2
Environmental Factors
Stream Impacts (LF)
N H D-Lidar/Delineation
700
3,689
3,038
700
Functional Value of Impacted Streams
Low/Medium
Low/Medium
Low/Medium
Low/Medium
Wetland Impacts (AC)
NWI/Delineation
1.18
3.0
2.63
1.6
Functional Value of Impacted
Low/Medium
Low/Medium
Low/Medium
Low/Medium
Wetlands
Federally Protected Species Impact
No effect
Not likely
No effect
No effect
Cultural Resources Impact
Not Likely to adversely affect
Not Likely to adversely affect
Not Likely to adversely affect
Not Likely to adversely affect
Floodplain Impact (AC)
0
0
0
0
LEDPA
Yes
No
No
No
0_
NorthPoint" Kimley}>aHorn
__DFVEL0PMENT

17
In summary, the applicant and design team considered a variety of alternatives that would avoid and
minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent practicable while satisfying the
overall project purpose. Through a comprehensive analysis of both off -site alternatives and on -site
configurations, the applicant has been able to reduce the overall environmental impacts and
demonstrate that the proposed site and design is the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative. Specific to the on -site configurations, the applicant reduced the overall aquatic resource
impacts by 2,338 LF of stream and 1.45 acres of wetlands through the proposed design and facility
layout and the 223,488 square foot reduction in building size and footprint.
7.0 THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES
Kimley-Horn (KH) completed a threatened and endangered species assessment within the project
site. Before conducting the field survey, KH reviewed state and federal records to determine if any
listed species were known to occur within and/or in the general vicinity of the project area. A review
of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) System and the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) was conducted to identify species that are known
to occur within Gaston County. Following the review of available information, KH conducted a
pedestrian survey of the project site to determine the available habitats on -site and the potential
occurrence for listed species. Pedestrian surveys were conducted in April and September 2020. No
individuals of listed species or critical habitat associated with a listed species were observed during
the pedestrian surveys. Based on observations during the site visit, existing habitats documented
within the site, absence of listed species and geographic location of the project, no adverse impacts
to protected species will occur in association with the proposed project.
8.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A request for a review of potential cultural resources was submitted to the North Carolina Department
of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) on April 3, 2020.
NCSHPO responded on June 5, 2020 and stated the proposed project will adversely affect the
National Register -eligible Caleb John Lineberger House (GS0327). Additionally, the letter notes that
one previously recorded archaeological site (31GS376) consisting of the remains of an early
twentieth-century domestic structure is present within the project area. Per NCSHPO's
recommendation, the applicant has contracted with an experienced archaeological consultant to
conduct the recommended survey. The results of the survey will be provided once the survey is
complete.
9.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The City of Gastonia and Gaston County are Phase II stormwater delegated local authorities that
jointly implement NCDEQ's Post -Construction Stormwater Program. Through preliminary
coordination with the City and County, the stormwater administrator confirmed the use of sand filters
as an acceptable means of treatment. The use of sand filters in lieu of more traditional treatment
options afforded the site additional site plan layout flexibility since sand filters generally have a
smaller footprint compared to other Stormwater Control Measures. A preliminary stormwater
management plan has been designed by KH and although this plan has not yet been finalized, the
preliminary plan includes the construction of stormwater ponds designed to accommodate the
stormwater volume associated with the development of the site. The final stormwater management
ONoy-Moftlt Klrnrey }>> Horn
DEVELOPMENT

18
plan will meet all stormwater management requirements and will be submitted to the delegated local
authorities for review. Approvals will be provided to NCDWR once they are received
10.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Compensatory mitigation will be met by the purchase of credits through the NC Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) in -lieu fee program. 1.18-ac of wetland impacts will be mitigated through the
purchase of wetland mitigation credits. Based on an NCWAM assessment of Low for Wetlands 2
and 14, compensatory mitigation is proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio for impacts to these features, or 1.4
wetland mitigation credits. A quality assessment result of Medium for Wetland 13 proposes mitigation
at 2:1 for impacts to this feature, or 0.5 wetland mitigation credits. 700 LF of stream impacts will be
mitigation through the purchase of stream mitigation credits. Based on an NCSAM assessment of
Low for Streams 8, 10, and 11, mitigation is proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio for impacts to these features,
or 854 stream mitigation credits. A quality assessment result of Medium for Stream 5 proposes
mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for impacts to these features, or 262 stream mitigation credits. In total, 1.9
wetland mitigation credits and 1,116 stream mitigation credits will be purchased from NCDMS to
offset impacts associated with this project.
11.0 CONCLUSION
NorthPoint Development, LLC is proposing the construction of a large-scale master -planned
industrial logistics center in Gaston County, North Carolina. The project area totals approximately
350-acres located between Interstate 85 and West 1 st Street in Gastonia and Lowell, Gaston County,
NC (35.268731 ° N,-81.115133° W). The industrial warehousing complex will contain 3,914,512 SF
of warehouse space and will provide warehousing and logistics services to Charlotte MSA related
clients and the 1-85 corridor. As compensatory mitigation for impacts to aquatic resources, the
applicant is proposing to purchase 1,116 stream mitigation credits and 1.9 wetland mitigation credits
from the NCDMS. The proposed project is the result of numerous development plan reviews during
which the applicant was able to further avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources. All
development activities will be conducted using best management practices to prevent incident
impacts to the remaining on -site aquatic resources.
ONoftUo' KlIllrey }>) Horn
DEVELOPMENT

APPENDIX A
Figures / Site Maps

aa.B : S rin dale q3
N
y
GD
6
Vl
q
5
+ Dallas
}rent 0.J� Tl+�
a�Rd
��ynlr
NI1 H a
t�
Va
yYlltd� �tai
1�
O b
ED
Gastoniy E Fr-i, ..
r a
ILK
Belmont
irnp
gam
S Ole to
nYre 4ik-13
�_ n
Rhyne oaKlarid,�
Geer Si ��Y 51 4 pi
,jp�
Gastonias
R
aryirr!
,�8}tin
A, 7
_
Or a
v on
07
0 5
10
b
'"
Mile
[;
3
Ra.•
rr
a y 9
°` r
Fag F:n A S.
Ar
_ = N
7J li—I
4 G
Aherdae Owd
q.:.
k'r
`�
0� c � U'
4 � � 4� rMarfha Avr
l rq
y
4rhire Ape -f?a
�•
@r
1
Ava
J
y`
!r C3u110a
• �>—
p` u-�•�=�_.�
FMlnhrdY.a Rd
_
s
.
a
Lowell s+�9 �Qsyner
—�
`rrhelyn
Are m
N YrA d"nerrre Aae�a
Eau, rh. . -
M.n
..
8�+rardr
wsr.hsrr Arrhur
Y r 'N
tic
n6
e-r sr ti '^V �ryryrp +•w
b, `i$ C`� : r n1" ❑
fb�
F OwlZ7r
7tauc ✓A }{y�'
ycr ���
Rd r7�+Are
`
1
n
-.bq MallWO
rp
= �L
` fF�r#fln�lrp—
J ,.
u
a a
rd9S 9
77d
Lnn
y
St
fyi F
�
Ub Fe is Ma PIm Ood Dr �'
7 Fur
BMArfy 7e Rp .
i►ar shall "Rrt11LT �Ty - - fj;
Rabrga
GMIY'IS'� C`
pr�Alr iar
73. E Fri
i+
S7
s°n t A VA t
S
J
r►.M
GfriR
scanweeu prr n
A
y,rhiti
[id
°n j Ln
E Frartklrr.
S
1nci. a,n ,
Legend
nstiongAar kbr� ¢
Garda -or r
oea`
�° '�F e q
,cr"��° -
tr
Feet
Project Boundary
s,,+�o¢F,rrl�rn
Park rY c1¢ k='
p tr
pd
'=r,
y�
��Q
0 2,000 4,000
a}
Q
5d
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Kimley>Morn
NorthPoint - Gasfdoitl t+dG�t&
Gaston County, NC
September 2020

,. '''dui. �- 'r� � = F � .� � ^� � .+r �• (� �
gend
Project Boundary
dim
lk
vae ee �• i .l i � "� .r ,f- a
'WiS If
85
Feet
+ 1 1,000 2,000

Legend
Project Boundarylo
,' a ti �" J�_1.�;� Ind �- r
01
L.! ~
'
rr
PO
Ix
f
r To
;z ■WT
r
Nell,
01
Feet
e 0 1,000 2,000
Figure 3
USGS Topographic Map (Gaston N and Mount Holly)
NorthPoint - Gasifda4hEtjm�ticCQ#atda
Kimley >>� Horn Gaston County, INC
September 2020

r*
gas' ` .� 1 [ � • i ;. Y 1{
FLegend y
Mapped Streams (NHD)
Project Boundary
Legen
roj
Mapped Wetlands (NWI)
Zo
one X (Area of Minimal Flood Hazard)
.10
if
4 �
J .a 1
85.'
Feet 1,000 2,000

Gaston
Couritp, North Carolina
(NC071.)
Legend
n,P U
ni:i_
SpnnL,a,l
Mau Unit Nance
Ares P-t.
I AO f. ACT
� Project Boundary
1 Y
y.
Am8
Alamance
21.3 5.6%
SSURG() SOIiS
variant grave0y
loam, 2 to 8
percent ropes
Hydric Rating
Art r)
Alamance
8,0 2Af%
Not Hydric (0%)
variant gravely
loam„ S to is
Percent slopes
Hydric (1-32%)
V-3
Cecil -urban
6.5 1.7%
land compfer.,
C Hydric (33-65%)
2 to S percent
slopes
Hydric (66-99%)
ChA
Chewacla loam,
18.7 4.946
6 to 2 percent
slopes,
Frequently
rlooded
LSE
Lloyd loam, 15
10.1 2.6%
to 25 percent
slopes
W52
Lloyd SAnd:
42.7 11-1Wu
clay loam. -' to
TaB,
JaB
TaD
U' TaB TaB CfB
g TaB TaD�
TaD TaD LgB
, T.
LdD2 TaD TaD
AmB
LgB w�!
slopes,moderatelyCfB LdB2 LdD2 LgB WoA I `
i - AmD AmB WoA TaB
LdD2
Uayd sandy
22•0
5.7 r%
-
clay loam„ 3 to
1S percent
slopes,
mocerately
eroded
Lg6
Llgnum silt
26,1
6.690
foam, 1 to 6�
..
percentslope5y
■'�1 14
Tag
Tatum giaveiW
!cam, 2 to a
129.5
13.7%
r
r M
oe rce..it slo Des
J
r
TaD
Thrum gravelly
59.4
23.346
r �
'cam, a to 15
oe rcen t .slope s
•h•JOA
Worsham roam,
9.7
2.5No
-
.�
4 to 2 percent
slopes
Totals for Area of
3a4.1 100.00,10
}.
Interest
Kimley >Morn
A7.
ChA LgB LgB AmD AmB TaD u.
LdD2 AmB AmB TaD .. • 1
AmB AmB
AmB
•�
ChA, AmB AmB
LcE TAB TaD11 gB
TAB
LcE TAD TAD
ChA
TAB
TAD
All
85 � LdB2
TaD
LdB2
' Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Figure 5
SSURGO Soils
NorthPoint - GastOaitPa tMkG itW
Gaston County, NC
September 2020

i 1
LegendIntermittent
1 f , ! .7 �, ` •,+ .' y ter=- �_ - 1 . , + ' J
Project Boundary
Wetlands 4
Streams 0
r j It
Perenni
AA
T
pp
• * r�r f ® '
• �.',-'• 7 - •y' l
la ■ 4 v
'i• mot• r..a i F _ �'
:fir'
.
J ;M• W ti � � -,►M �Y �► 5 r�..t� - ,i -�r� �` 1
. _ 1 Ap fir
- � . I.• r _ Ali v.. � - �1
Ap
10 q
1,�..
1 + 4 a s'L !i --
j �� •''� a ' a 0 500 1,000

APPENDIX B
USACE Jurisdictional Determination

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2020-00836 County: Gaston U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Mount Holly
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor:
NorthPoint Development, LLC
Ian McDonald
Address:
4825 NW 41st Street, No. 500
Riverside, MO 64150
Telephone Number:
816-384-2292
E-mail:
imcdonald(&northpointkc.com
Size (acres) 380 Nearest Town Lowell
Nearest Waterway Duharts Creek River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050102 Coordinates Latitude: 35.268731
Longitude:-81.115133
Location description: The review area is located on the south side of Railroad Street; approximately 1 miles west of the
intersection of Railroad Street and N. Main Street. PINs: 3565792228, 3565887512, 3565979625, 3566804059, and 3566804873.
Reference review area description shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled "Figure 1, Vicinity Mad'.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® 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 4/27/2020. 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-2020-00836
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 [phone] 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
b rvan.roden-reynolds(a)u sace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 7/15/2020.
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/deternimation 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.**
RODEN Digitally signed by RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
Corps Regulatory Official: REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 Date: 2020.07.15 15:26:00 -04'00'
Date of JD: 7/15/2020 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2020-00836
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: Kimley-Horn Associates
Chris Tinklenbum
Address: 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number: 704-409-1802
E-mail: chris.tinklenberg(&kimley-horn.com
Property Owner:
Calyx, LLC
Arch Lineberger
Address:
203 N. Main Street
Belmont, NC 28012
Telephone Number:
704-461-1223
E-mail:
arch.linebemer(a gmail.com

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: NorthPoint Development, LLC, Ian
File Number: SAW-2020-00836
Date: 07/30/2020
McDonald
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
❑X
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.miUMissions/CivilWorks/ReaulatoryProgramandPennits.aspx
or tCorps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
Owl t
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERM
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
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds
CESAD-PDO
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1 OM15
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Phone: [phone]
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 opportum to participate in all site invest] ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
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 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 07/30/2020
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: NorthPoint Development, LLC, Ian
McDonald, 4825 NW 41st Street, No. 500, Riverside, MO 64150
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, NorthPoint — Gastonia Site,
SAW-2020-00836
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located on the
south side of Railroad Street; approximately 1 miles west of the intersection of Railroad Street and N. Main
Street. PINS: 3565792228, 3565887512, 3565979625, 3566804059, and 3566804873. Reference review area
description shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled "Figure 1, Vicinity Map".
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES
AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Gaston City: Lowell
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.268731 Longitude:-81.115133
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Duharts Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 05/11/2020
® Field Determination. Date(s):07/14/2020
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION
Feature
Latitude
Longitude
Estimated
Type of aquatic
Geographic authority to
(decimal
(decimal
amount of
resources (i.e.,
which the aquatic
degrees)
degrees)
aquatic
wetland vs. non-
resource "may be"
resources in
wetland waters)
subject (i.e., Section 404
review area
or Section 10/404)
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
SEE ATTACHED TABLE
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 1-5
® 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 naive: Figure 2, USGS Topographic May (1:24,000
Gaston North and Mount Holly, NC)
®Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure 3, SSURGO Soils and NWI (Web Soil
Survey of Gaston County)
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Figure 3, SSURGO Soils and NWI (USFWS NWI Manner)
❑ 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 Man (Undated) and Figure 4, PJD Field Sketch
(Dated 04/27/2020)
or ® Other (Name & Date): Photographs 1-52 (Dated 04/27/2020)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
® Other information (please specify): Figure 5, PJD Field Sketch (LiDAR) Dated 04/27/2020, NCDWO
Stream Identification Forms (Version 4.11) Dated 03/25/2020, 04/08/2020, and 04/14/2020
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps
and should not be relied upon for later iurisdictional determinations.
RODEN Digitally signed by RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYANXENNETH.1 R4YNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.12633855
263385574 Date: 2020.07.15 15:25:35-04'00'
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
7/ 15/2020
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 fmalizing an action.

TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION
Site Number
Latitude (decimal degrees)
Longitude (decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount of
aquatic resource in review
area
Type of aquatic resource
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic resource
"may be" subject
S1 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.266594
-81.122176
3,361 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S2 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.271616
-81.122078
192 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S3 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.269063
-81.123272
406 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S4 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.267616
-81.123307
410 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S5 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.268936
-81.118424
3,696 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S6 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.272404
-81.117085
117 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S7 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.271945
-81.118361
477 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S8 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.270421
-81.118948
262 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S9 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.268171
-81.116931
990 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S10 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.262967
-81.116937
743 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S11 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.264057
-81.115849
82 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S12 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.265223
-81.111736
2,840 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S13 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.268047
-81.111749
1,395 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S14 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.264078
-81.110366
242 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S15 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.264465
-81.10934
596 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S16 - UT to Duharts Creek
35.262985
-81.110385
186 If
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
W1
35.267698
-81.129168
0.17 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W2
35.272093
-81.121868
0.18 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W3
35.265236
-81.121816
0.12 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W4
35.264249
-81.121817
0.73 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W5
35.263262
-81.120409
0.17 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W6
35.272141
-81.118861
0.12 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W7
35.271480
-81.118402
0.26 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W8
35.272640
-81.115827
0.45 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W9
35.268182
-81.117631
0.30 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W10
35.268775
-81.116434
0.03 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W11
35.269071
-81.115844
0.13 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W12
35.262772
-81.118111
0.02 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W13
35.264474
-81.115822
0.25 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W14
35.270165
-81.113583
3.37 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W15
35.270636
-81.111934
0.20 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W16
35.270104
-81.111791
2.27 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W17
35.269058
-81.112775
0.01 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W18
35.268892
-81.112605
0.01 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404
W19
35.267274
-81.113198
0.04 ac
Wetland waters
Section 404

_ry Church R Oaklaw r
- _0 dam +
S
ns
woo
M
EbonyAv�+r'f
Is.
pperdeenBlvd N
• N
�� � / rFi! 3 Fri • . cG`
G
.�mprokeRd �3 �• .. �:UrJY. .• � y
`�,� ,�'� /c♦ h ram° 6
--
85

APPENDIX C
Permit Drawings

.iM { ► _ = i - -. - { . -- Udl
+M Il+rr -*' r' - �. - i , r �. 4� , .�E y r• r *' BUILDING SUMMARY TABLES IaLv
17
Wool �6
y+ ♦ 1" h:- '� �' r��/j/({1j��'�ti -�•� .P +�,' ''a. r '1� t e '�. I Ai �
k �•' �� - � C z ! . +r1f" - i� - �j n. • , r'. `•,V \ _ , .ti, t y, ; ♦
s s �, Sr i aA� � Ilia , .. F ,�i �r•. s ,.* r a �*-,Z.
1 �r1 ♦ } , `. -tii �t ri I l - + sf1� - y#y w �..
1 �_ - 1 �ai -. .. "* • hl- -"
31
-� + � ! *_ . •i � 6 " , ` V 4., R ' '�, . `�+�1�i t. 3_/�j G. IN f,, • / a � �{
� ,. i- +,i'Pi � A���/n•"�: 'G }��.-"- ' �I +� r a l" ' Irk I �;� ti Fi.�'. '�•'�a yj`�y � - ,. ;-'' {_ T- t!`_ I•_� _ 1 •
-4 f. 5�.► `� y.: rl' �� ""' 7!,, V �� •. 'r` •al • '' `',•r-\.�S_ •�+-1-r J�. ,.T�l�J a ' � A ■`,: ��; 1.. ' j �,' : `tr., J �' y, 4�'
dry,".� v ♦r r. T fJt •a ♦ }[ f j �M+w !I'` i ♦ •'� 1,
r -;� { •:� .►,� Fit w' ',�~ .� -� 1 ,a_c ' �.• �' .� ,1 �" � � Y ,1 • .r+ 4 I'1, I,, \ � 3 ��
I.
to
is
tic",
_ yd,
,•`` ->� ti0ti r� �� �- � p � • 1.1 ` 4 �� Yam' � � ' f ,� � r.� � t- Ir'I \ ���a��d��� �I�'i P � �
Y^_ ti �a•�{ �Lt '1� • �,,-• a-,�,. ��.� •'�.. • ,� `� I*y f �,..� � � 11
M1�: I 'i i _',, • - 1.. il•• �` '� __ _ �+. `4 �5T_ - 4Y+� — - I+ ,� F ,a; I1�1 r.
L �V - .♦ - •' _ r A�y s '•\� " _ � 'l � ,a �� ,,(fir Y'' 1 s� � .'. J
i� � 4 � 1 +R'�y a • +. 1 - ` � 1� •-}+�'r�y � t � � / `2 ' '' �;' ' -J"-�` I p"t ' • � ` • ��' �y '''4
ti+ i h 74
1 a
h _ «� ♦.�. �,, V► � � AiI�+`�
�' • ?{ .' �'­ ,
1 - ' t
alb•• - i' / L '� "�• �_ r .
r0. d'.ems
. f
4
x�a 'i�Y}f ��!C' s !� 1 _ 1, 1�+,'• �S*.�1.j• r'�� - �, .. .+~, �r' SI♦
*,j• '_ 14^
1
� t,1
-BUILDING 3002
r
595,080
to
01
IL
,'�-•- r , t, . -�'. a � .y r •. e. ,-• �4'a - r _ � III 'fin
to • ••Tt
- -
1
WETLAND 14 -IMPACT 8'
" !
N'W
AREA 1 SUMMARY TABLE
BUI-DING
SIZE(SF)
1001
286,212
-002
622,400
Total Square Footage
908,672
AREA 2 SUMMARY TABLE
BUILMNIG
SIZE(SF)
2001
203,840
2002
202, 840
2003
1, 3JQ.0a)
Total .Square Footage
1,707,680
AREA 3 SUMMARY TABLE
BUILDING
SIZE(SF)
3001
430,920
3002
595,08D
3003
272,160
Total Square Footage
1,298,160
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
ek
' 3,914,512
Carps Impacts
WETL NDI(AC) 1.18
'- STREAMS (LF) 700
Aw-
! �
1
, 7.. \\`,. .1' ` ,�,'. :\',', 0 74 AC -PERMANENT h F'
ilk
« �� 1� 1 C WETLAND 14 -IMPACT 7 ;`;. `, ,�`' : yip
0.03 AC - PERMANENT.' .'
+'
t, - \
/ \ ,.:.
ra ` 7 LdUlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllr�
1 6 MENT
4
1 t _ _ V
- -
I l � 1
1
!1
r
r � f
�
x so
Sm
11.4
I I VL m ilk,
- WETLAND �I YVETLAND W
L BUILDING 2001 280'
r ' � � • ��.
203,840 S.F. — •• �I ... : / �z
I �{ TLAND • S ti r LI ` ,a .�• :, ; I 1!1 I 1 • . � v.�
' \ ,tii '•'-�';"�:::�' _ 7 :�� =- -
dw
- r " , STREAM 5
_ 1 r
� � ! � � •�- ___ �1 131 LF PERMANENT:'.
ti� f �� i I �� r BUILDING 2002
,fir'
I I ,r�rW�++ - �+L `:A - +
r r `� ` ` i t j t 203,840 S.F.
....... ..... ..
-
- �V 4 ^- \ •,4 l4 �� r r� �,I / •�`� 1 I I rr'� � \``� � ,� � / J ''. ry ; t•,C' Y... �`
1 �' l,� �.� I 1 of♦ 1 /''�' ` I j`� 1 �M
la' I �! �'�`' FLv_ L1A � ��'`` :A'`'' v o LI �' :'•' v !
13
-DING 100
S.F.\ ; r
s272 �
l r,
r G 1002
BUILDING \,r
PRO G, I T NE ' I I � � �
t 622 400 S.. � F
4
WE D
Orly 1 +�+ - ± ' r ! .x `\ \ r• r� I ;` \ t ,r' - 4WWI
FT F ODPLAIN
1 00,eYAAR FLOODPLAIN \• ► I 2 `'�' ��
'7 0 �
1
s * i► i i1 I I \ \' T {� j 1 I t BUILDING 2003;
N
1 "``. 1 ;,1'`\,; I ` t 1,300,000 S.F. 1
1. �` - 1 — / , - ` , ` • •.• } 1
_ 500YR LO LAIN ! {
"` — -•_ _ `� PLAIN
17
WE
�- 30 STREAM (• 1 ,1 I , WETLAND 13 -IMPACT Brot!
", , �:MN�.v V�L.: , r r �k - .,.� { I �: I \ •. \ 0.25 AC - PERMANENT p t
,e] AiIRIM. � f , 1► �r y +_ �� w - � ` ` 1 1 \ r 1 `•�'r� � f� r �"� - ',
STREAM 11 -IMPACT 5 i
B1 LF - PERMANENT '' *L . r
I
; 440 LF - PERMANENT STREAM y 4
� 30 STREAM, m�7N�
e _ 1 1. • ^ . " _+ = 4L
PROPERTY LINEit
jr
Fli 1 Si Q wZ �yy 4 � � + � ; ''_ r n , . � -, ♦- 1__ - i;' 'tit - ',� - � ! \- - _ - �!!!i• _ - '
ta
IL
.%t4
l ��ir;s' 'f �' 1 r �y�r , i w ■ . .T j{`� �'.r' r h IF
r r y r d • { S :�j
- � sZ7.
•' - } r+- ♦ r � L ►a � � ~ � `� � 1 �� 'T �,!~� n�{ '+(• •�` I' � � r` w y 1 - K �- '��* �$ i�� yt• ` - - - - a � ___
-h' if� 1► ! t' .- 1 �4i _ '{! .Z�'.�. ,. .-.-.'•. '1'`11-:yai.11.5_-1 -
WETLAND IMPACT EXHIBITS "jm%mmmj�7
im e orn
NORTHPOINT - GASTONIA SHEET 1 of 2 0 125' 250' 500' 750' NORTH
09/01 /2020

r r'/IAiPF r ,� F 7's }�• - y r 1� ''� + * '1 rr -� �",\
- 4 .. - � I II, - �W* - ,�tl j ,I,� I', --- - --, /
it MMJ r - I 4 r' '+ r --' , .0I , ' �� � t / V � � r,!: � `:.
... ; 1p
( t I­"0# 4"I
S e • I, _ w
_ - ' _ 4
1► 4 _ ` ' P � i ' � t. �" " ?1 r _ 1 j . - I \ I I I {II r'� } '
_•I. , • `. •y ` 1 ' + 'nil '`_`. . l � ,�0 _ ',t, \.. _ ` - `, -\.\� ,k W1 ll \� , !'rl
1
*. , .._.1�kLA w9�- 2 I vA'� _�i- .', _ �I tl 1\I4%\V�pt-'' ��Q,-
. 1 I 1. s<. " +XA„ �; •.1�11 r ,' AA - - -� r T yll l 1111\� \� \�
. ft. I - .a .. I. J7 iWhRt,
• t .• - it Ik. 1 1 - / -. ✓ ,� 1, ,\. ,\
- r-�_-_ _ _ �
A?6.�. -� I .
a - , _,f4 I 6 4
. IV- 7 - a,* � 4- IL I
a :'' 110 ip r. . J _T\ \111_
'T� 1 ..� I 1 s _ r, - ^ ♦ 1' r { � { i 1 I.
/ ,' _I f /
1 __ ► I /" I r l I
[ - �' .r ` . l 1 '' 1 J
�- - _ 1 { ��. ,IPA , I ` �� /
11
ON
` ift «, w t i,1• - _ _ �r ; /"il�lrf/ I� UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,n
� r� A / 11 Jfl
I Ill
tl •,I �' mv ,, � I
t ,
I. .-I :I-- ­r : -#. I- . ­�i * " I-�, ",I ", I ,,/I 1�.
4
1- WETLAND 2-IMPACT 1
_ 4
* . I . 1 11 „ a 0.18 AC -PERMANENT \..
*I%- I! - I �jI p`ilIF.. %-, ,. —I— . �kII l I - it 0 1M-t I 11I-IIN.f. ,,-I f(A-j��,)j",) V ',. I" I . %J.,
__ - I . - f .. .
�''� .. r ' 11,1 420
' tt, . 44 I
!'
r
' . 0 1 % t � ,r
a1 I v \ .\
� G . A ? 4 —1 - �_I OW. j 4 )It. � Iv� , I rR. III
-
r /
ff
'.
.. 11 -, " J, I
1
r t
r
r ..
: \� - ,�.; ..
A■ �. IIIIIII, I- ) / \� .; \
. ­N,.1&I7.I�.F."Il=-
, ''(. _�'i",k
t, r11 I% . '� - - � 1" v 1111111�`;� �� ��.. ; I' �' : v y,
a .t 1 - I ', III I �� I1 1\ �T \ \ T .' k I M
/L ///
dc
w I 11 '�11, \ I III \ 1 1\ .' \ 91 I,1
! I r I1`'1\ \.\ � - llI l i 11,l�l\1 �� . �ti`\ ��� \ t '1 ,1 1,11 ,�
.. r \\ 1111 11. 1 T\ T 1
\ , \ I t 1 \\ 1 I`` \ # T
.r \ 1 \T I \\ I T\ 1.
r ; / 1 \ 1 1
s L 1 �. , \ 1 1
T / 1 1 � \ �\ \ l 1 I• I I. _ � T 1 I 1 \ \ 11r \ 1 ` 1 \ I 1 � 1 _ 1 i 111� \\ ��-\ \ � 11 � T
J \ � I I,II�':
J I ,
s f. 1' 1 ' \ I ' 11 \ \
I �\ \
. `+ _- - I 1 I , 1 \� ,� 1 � � �/I I �I i {1d III \ � � T \\�� � ,t
{ t \ / T \ 11
w I \ { \ / \ 1 �1 T . STREAM
_ -, I \' 1 l I � T \
► f , l 1 �'11 / i \ \\\\ \'
. T al ` \
\ \
1 i 1 \ \\
/ I 1
- 1 1
ti t. / i
,1 � 1,1
- t l / �/ . ! l \ il� l f I \
�W r r 1 1 ! I T l� I \ T� 1{ r s 30 STREAM BUFFER f \
1 i I 'I i i I i ,� , f I/ �/ 1 1\ \ 1 �� , I
1 1 1 _ �/ / / 1 r'
/ T
1 , \ \
1 l' , �..
/ �' 1 t ! I11� III {I �r \\` \\ III,,,I �'
\ (( , \ \ \ /
\''
/ \
1 l � rr � � T I I � , r R.
l , L \ t \ I \\ r \�. I
L r- \ ,` I 1 � �� \ it \ � is r:, A
1 v ll W'
II , �\ 1 \ `.'�� � 'A it T 1 1 i v s 1 1 � � v � ,I 1 _ 1 1 �/ � I V , 1 l 1 � � ..
,\
I l 1 1 v r
II -�-*..- ' y ' yy• y v`v 'i't 1 v )):1 - 1 \ I\, �= �, y' IAv�l�" 11�1� �,9T, ! !
1 \
l' i \�� \ J I _, 1 �/ 1
ti 1 \ i.:
w 1
• 1 • � I i elm � �+ �\ - i
.v / _
1 it `- .v ,. _ !� 1 d r / v A
s �; 1 1 /1. / S I I �. A
z I l J 1
i ,
�� v
N } I I � I I
- A` v
�, T
/ � ` \ � V � !illll I � I I' 'I
• r 1 L ' \: <
v 1 .,
i � � t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� � , r -- v I \\\ v T __ / 1 ``� n
_- A-. Jy � tv , � 11
I �� r 1 I \ \T
\ 1 v
1- -111: ,, 1 ,l �`�� � \ it
ti v 1.1 ti:l� 1 1 I - \
1 I k ,l 1 � -
1
I � �1 1 I � i � � � _-, �. A I !
1 � _ . Il I I II I I I
,. T1 I I v,
1 . 1; 1 ;A r
t �1
v \ ��, p 1 1 i`
a' 1 1
1 \ I _ J` . T
I �� -
S 1 - - - - J i
-- -
4 1 1 -_ _ -
, 11 -
}l i r }
J ? 1 _ _
t1 ►+I9 1 1 r l _� � -- -
1 1MF► .) , , J;rj /`//l I, I'`,}7 ` ' II I- - - r~
_) - - _
i 8. r \ __ I } - - - T'' ' dllrllillll IH
!- ','.—,4I- IItN 11.j . -�!.Im--- m,-.,_. -Am-IiftI _­. v
t, _
---\ �I � I
III
\X/\-,�
1 / � I
pp >
, � 1.
► r r . _ r
1 I i �► ,
r I 1
4 I
1 , I I' I I
1 1 , � --- ,r 1 1
. I :r 4 s l 1
� - I I I
1
a .� II l
�� / , .-. 1 1 } 111 728
- /
�. I
Iwi ,I / 1
r It
� � \ i 'i =� J I
L ,-�; r � I �:- �, ,\ , '`,� � �i�r;./'� - - I I s.✓T ,' III I �
r I. I BUILDING 200i
.- T _ i Il
,-- T � I t ,
-_ # �r v rr� f _; ; /\ i / I I! j 1 I I t 203,840 S.F.
i ,1 J I ,
--�' I ` •1fi�+�""''i f TLAND �+- _ /fir'\ I Ilj i - _ Ij1 I 1 I�
k f_i -. 1 1 1�1 —T V' r 1``I �' l
I. I k1- _l1Ih*I II —I-. *. 7.IV�I- r0I-m�m1%0. mwnl�--a—m"—O_m_ 0"�' I I AI
T — _ _ I
I � 1
- I -
\ I ><'.
r
, I
{
! :�. � � � : STREAM 5 IMPACT 3
i:'1 1
i r ®j• % 1 ` 1 \ 131 LF PERMANENT 1
/ \
I 4 _,,, .
fi t�t %I ik ,T
\\.
., r
ti �^
;, Affi",Q,,
- ,rIr , ''1 T Ir 1,`,
r
t ' �IrM�rr► I�+ ' 1
/ /
_ . r
-
f y 1.
V
/ , %�
_ id T.• . 1i
II
j'CI
r - / r
1 I' % _
, f /P
r 1
. \
1 I _
` I
.1, '174'd [I / . ) I ,\ ''
/ 1
\• 1
/ 1
1.
-�
' _ \
�.. , � FLU LEA � T ,
�+ T:
c 1
1 :\ \ ;
, r T lr
i1 _
qr T. `1 f
:T
' , j I f , „\'. B ILDING 1001 \ 1 , / , /
\ �' 1 t 1 00 P
i 1 1
Il4 ..u`. 1 1 l
♦
F.
. . 6 272 S 1 �
I t$ , I 1
1 ` r � 1t, , ��
I 1 \ \
r.
I�' \ ,T
1
r - 1 ,'
1
1
1
r/ \
1 \:.: 1 02
�:\ BUILDING 0 I , I
� i
PRO fTY NE ' I �
T I 1 I,-
,\ 1
t
' '\ 1.
r 2 4 O S. F.
. \; t 62 0 1 1
\w
I,
4
"
I
l
*
Q
vft
I
- Ibb
NI -
10
I
,
,
1
.
,
�
.
L
.,: 1 T , t 1
$ 1
1 `,� 1, 1
1 , 1 1 I 1
t - 1
1 � 1
t {
1,
1
1 1
1
- r t , 1 \ � r
T I
1 /
t �`.' I
\\'
1 p
_ 4� , I T �G t � r l
1 `I f
I T
r �
1 •� • 1
.! \
I 1' 1 / T. N � r 1
`){{
l
t r' - r I � \' \ 1 I 1
r r.
I I �' I �
- _ i 1
I
+i' i r \'• _. 1 � I
� I � 1 � I
' I L 1 T: , r
f f
!, J I I I 1
I 1 ,T..
- I I ,` \ , I 1 J
r
\ I
T I
- I 1 1
"
1
-
.,
A- —7
T
1
L
-
I
;
-
-.
,,
.
_
_.
I
I
f
A
,
,
a T'" \ I I i , r
� 1
_ T I 1
j
1 \ 1
_ , 1 I
50D a F ODPLAIN
1
l 1
� ,- li I ..1
100 AR F�ODPLAI 1 � . ,``, , ��",
-� - I11k 4l 1. I
I
I
�-_•1 r III II ,�1k I I c
v
L \ t ` /,(
- - _ - [ice" - ti� __�
� / � f 1 11 'T, �� ` �� ,. 11
1
k
L
I
I
�
/
/
I
.�. W
_
W,ffb
,6m
_
I . wL i_.-l
I q
v,jpm.- WII I
; .
- ­H.�I
�Z7
-L-=��� 1.� _,
_-- . :��:
-��_��_
-
Z
-
_
i
__
-_�
-�, --
�
_
i
--
k
-
,
.
"
'"
4
0I
.
�-"
4
J1:—
*
%
I
I
I
I4
I
0li�
-
,. I
I.
,
_: — _ _ T \ 51a 500YR L0 W
} .1 r \
_ `.
~- _ 1,
r
.- f
1\
."
_,-0-_-."_5_,- .�__-,_"_-I
F
_
4
1�
L( _&_)-._-1L ---
_, - I
_
_--
I
T
\ /
- r
`� _— i
_ - �_ \
-.� _
_ T
_ _ __ T .
g- �1� , .,ice T
- % f
_ — = __ T .�
{ -� \ 1.
�. _
..T ,
1\\= \ r - �r - i 1 _ _ _ T
- i 1'
^, 1 � � ii T
1�
1 -
I - i � -�_
- fi J ��
IrW/ � 'Iy ,��- � 1 \
j - `� i
J
I �_ _ `
_. I1I � _ _ T 1
I � i� t r 1 \ =_ \
1 �1 �_ —
a \I,_� — ,
If _ - -
z I i� E� \
1 � / - I
:9 1.1 r - - �,: �
"L 4 t _ -
f111 \l /: -
\ \
1 _
1 -
\ i' '
I - - i
��
~4 \
1 \ = 1 1 t` r f))``
: 11` l A•
\ L � !: .� _ - f �s
, - 1 ter'., i � �\ - 4 % \ -
\ >1 - I �� - �� - r G-
- ` \
1 r - -
\ ll 1 - s i I
yam• ''� - _ _ - \` \ 1
r \` / r
/ I
\ 1 _
I- T y
I �' / 1
r � � R f
l - -
1 - - ,- - -
7 ]
`� \
I �� ,
1 I �_
I i
1— \.
rl � t
1 -
JI1 �_- I
r � �I y
1 _
e � ! ~ate _ v
! 1 �, _� _ _
i-
/ ' -_ -_ f /
s _- - 1
!'f 1 w �� / k ���
__ -1i
.. . I IIT 7-. I-4 t % 1..v"I ,- --fa,; 11 __...4_ IIIIIIIIII - -1.4__; :_7-_ _a- --.6_-_-i- ,. - 'T . -. . - .--. I*apAAll'k,- -. - - ,- _ . :,1 ? . ,' I I . I '" - I fim:m1w7- ,p - -::,-�77 .1. �yaW-:7:-_._,�_7��� � ��_I_!!�-�_:�:__�_�t- - _�-_, -_
�� -_ Il
a �=
A
,1
Aer
1 C � � � � 1 , fY. n rr .r. r: I�w - r f ----�
_ ~� \ ; `�\1l (- _�- 1- - , - ._ 1
"I �0 _ 1 r j . 'e �+ ,.,{ 11 . I ` t + fir- r R F m • � 1 / ­ T\\,\-\, ',N V (l - � _
$ftv... , ,r . III;: �41 - . It . . �����­ ��E
L ... . : . Z. .- . , _11 W�
G. . vt I 14�I0 * q&z mc -.dw V4/.I I IIdt0 -r 0_j:-�
1 1 r
. .#A (rIftIm_ v ;,I- o if. -A WP .-- - ';'?
�'
- .t /f -
A j
--�
_ �1
M .. a J )
` - -w' ' w �,� � � : '� �' - - , '* - I� lJ' II III ' �/ "��' � .I
' -� r ,
1 N /
i �_ r
r r •I 7 1 ! %
+ //
- ► ✓ . 1 4 � _ �� j1i . 3 ji w l rr r
1 3 • Imo. . '�, .r ! . L f.. �" I / l
_ !J ..: 4 _ JIB Q >o J. :I ._ x _ _ IP -.!(L= _
i
��.�
'Vt^�r
Ly` _ llr r '- � �ti * : �� r�' _ `�. �. J%AIF�I ., �s',�� BUVL©INC,SUI�IIf�IARYTABLES
- /I / , I I W . A-Z .1;, ! ww
- ) { 11 i { 1 `I. -� I ;�� ` s # `.
4
T �- �t I , I I I . - v . 1; �
11-1 1:: t , I I . I *,, 0,
A - __ 1 -,--:�,',' �. — 'r . .
T 1 \, tiII
t �K. i
(. _
_ 1 -
f ,
11 t
_",�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. _, -,- I � I � _­ '� , I \ , � I . . .)
1% , -�, I I .
-` \\\\\\ Y
\,_ / ,err - __ 1 ! ! , 1` 1 \ i I ' s
---: —_ F� � v I _ j;',1 1 _
..__.. / ,
—� / / Yam"
_ -i
1 . /�- •t 10
— / J -
\ ( - ,
_
AREA 1 SUMMARY TABLE
BUI_DING
SIZE(SF)
1001
296,272
_002
622,40c►
Total Square Footage
908,672
AREA 2 SUMMARY TABLE
BUILDING
SIZE(SF)
2001
203,840
2002
203,840
20+C13
1, 3JQ; OA)
Total Square Footage
1,707,680
AREA 3 SUMMARY TABLE
BUILDING
SIZE(SF)
3001
430,920
3002
593,080
3003
272,160
Total Square Footage
1,298,160
��i77:__ I \ -W V . � - - :-v -%. .
#; ,
A }
I
t _ -- TOTAL DEVELOP LOPfVIENT _
/l' \ w �, 3,914,512
IlIti
IM
•:/ r / _ \ \,r Corps Impacts
/ / /_ \ � � P P O 5
)jI / •' ' i%//i 1 v� wT ti�
I II /I �• � /'r -� .-`fir yT •��illl,�, � �� . WETL4NDl{AC) 1.18
�,� - BUILDING 3002 ��� T T' - ';T- w�� .
ff,,I % _ �/ .����' _\ `\ V.'.- STREAMS (LIFj 7D0
Il;! i t f t 595,080 S.F.l /i' 1����� j
r _ i 1 ! /' / .- / _ --�\ " -%\ Wi z/ � ��TT I , � ' , =L •
\� r
STREAM 8 IMPACT 2 \ �.:. ` 1e w 1 , ,x
� T � t
-48 U' -PERMANENT 1 l /\ \= �' - \\\\ E1
_ _ .'
\ 1,
-- 70 \
. _ \
:III, � ` \ '' � �
, \
/ \\
��- 11
t `_ T '�,
�\ � 1 ' I
�
III �I I I 1 ��' � - ;' 1 S
r --I- .- �� .� )Till J A rt
1
I 5-i
i it 1l' _LLLLi. - _ _ \ I I I1 `,
I l
I' \ I ti I I i
I r-�.� r ti _ � I
III! ,
T
l{ F' l' I i
I
s./ 1 ! 1 "LI. 1 1
\` \ I ti I � 1 I _
I
I I I I h r' I \ ' 1
I
k 1 `'4 J
�/ I
f r-` I
_ �/ I I 1 ��� i «
1 v W -'--y _
I` L 1
Ay I f
�: T::� _ T
I , �.. / WETLAND 14 IMP CT •8' � � -
/ .\ I r ,A`t \� f , 1'
�, I � 1 l ,. •A f l
l�r OJ4 AC PERMANENT
f I t `'v � J.1 , �
I� i WETLAND 14 IMPACT 7 } . � l'. r `rT' I I
/ �` '- �. t. srr tea. [r. I � _.
1
II 1
1 - - �l 1 I I I \
1 0.03 AC PERMANENT ' r: s - - J
- i .I I
-- I
l I 1
yv`� , 1 f
/ y . A\ . A 4 ',•
I
_ _ I
_/ : �(\ �_ . �` _ v
--
�v -'r .�
1 \
6 DUKE ENER
d _ \ � J _ j I :-. ..
/ � I
I '��` i :':•A�:::::. I
�- ,
�_
7
"r' l ;-
_ _�
• --
. -
_ _
- _
I \
1 I '.
4'' #
/ - ,
I -
II
'I I - _
\ ....� . t
� J l I -
` - �-
1 I
- /
1
/ \ 44
_ J1 f. r R �f I�;IIii111iiI;i0ol/ / �T , � .r ,
__ , :•::i••••I Y 1� •.�••::•::•• r ,l JI li i 1, ( ( 1 - - - C0
- - - , - _•,��, I;1,1IJ11,1 i i i 1 / �k
• •F.•= • - -, i -
4 ."
/ J 4
.z
i, I �4 - i
I ' I Iy ' WETLAND ` hI WETLAND % i M.K. / } 11 - -
f {
.I _
1 ti l i
ICI r, I' \ ` T T ! I :� T. l l r l, I I I` i
T. - i I :.® i I Ill 1
t � / i ; ,.
\ \ 1
i / �_
Lp ` �
a ,
i
� ' I -":
\\ 1
\\
1 :� \
�.
\_ i l III f I ' -- - \' �' r _ _ / -_,
u1
/ _ I{ f_
A t :: rI. r / II
I I `f.
T - f�
~ - � , i�-7•fF�_ ..,-l: � �'{� I J r-+f',� I 1 '7 `�'"r;' � � - `\ { :` ,
r �i. 4 III.I I 1 l 1 !k J/ /--
.:►. � I �_ ; '�:� :1 I I hl 14 .� 11 ,'� 1. III' I ' 111'1 ' n - ,• /r� T . �T T`;11,i � \
/ , 1^=: - - p1 / I III , /� � � -i_ ,�, . , ,\
• .II=Zr-r. II ; ; ..I III i I' 1 \\ \
\ I 1. ` sYI 1 � r :� �/ 1 i i 1 I I / / �� ``\\, \, r
I, \ // , _ , \\ � l /7 i / ��
T l
- :i t
Yl I �,
1 r' 1 l _ -
j � s -r 1 1� t �'. /, y
_W� l I f .� ; T,/�J J (1 II 1 } ` , y - 1111` 11
" . Ii1' ,'� J I II �� r ' j. I ` // li / /�� _ -�1�1 1 I
�_� T 11 [ J I
/ i '
l ,I I T ,I
_ I
�,' 'I \ I I I 1
J1 r
/ J -
/ } f ' J I •� / l� 1 1 �. •, I
Il ,,. � JI \ J t I i BUILDING 2002 ''i ,` , 1 /, II ,���-. , 11 I � 1 ll I 1 �r{ _ I I' j�� �, ; i
I I I\ l l 1 - I
1 !
, 1 � \ 11 I /
/ 1 - Ii , /
1 � 1 _
'T � � � I
I t 203,840 S.F. l — - Ill \ \ \� ' J f { }''II' , I ( 1 ,. I ,11, t, _ -.•.r
4 1 '' - I1 L O \\ V f I i II III _ �--
_ _ � ,I I I 4 1 I
` - _ 1 i ,,ll
11 i I'II ,III II, II - �j //,: N 11J;I+Ij 11 \ �\\111,,,\'_ �� /,/"_ , . ll' 1 I " t
7 �• O � T\�T T<T�: \ �� \ � � ,r /P %
N , fit- I/) ��\,\\� \\�\\\1\\' I iI'i H{ /i �- � — ','I
I - �� � _ — - ill w
l 1 I I� \ :..
T— \ " -= 1\ ,1 I111\11111 I 1 I I \' I 1 - _ - = '1/1 _ �q
I _
I -y-- 1 � '�II � -
1 1 Il — _� ^
4 T
I _ r
\ I 1 I \
] i r/ of
-
i \ J, 111 I t 1 \ R J /
\ I � �/ I I
1 I 11 / T
\; _ I 1 )
,
\ \ l d _ _
\ _ ///ll 11' l I \ it
\ �' -
IA'
r I
I l -
I ,
\ ti l _ ,
1
I 1
� r -
� 1 �
;\ ++ t
/ 1
,\ \ i' _ I
:4 L
�\ /
T I r ,L I I
I f
T \\\ \
\ 1\ \ 'i __ - ti
I �� 1 - i ti
\ _� 1 1,
T ti 1
, r
` x� 1 T
1
I /
1
T 1 I I
1 I I '� , f T .'
i ti �
V.
_ 1' I
I 11j � ��-
I -
I ,
l
1 i
Ii i
,� 1 � l l f r ��
I
"�' . 1 i � 'I J r ;
\ 1t 1I 1 ./ / r -
/ 'II 1 f r~
— II
I rl
— �� � / /' r l I I �' T
„ 1
l , I 1
F I
•\ / / I I 1
'� T 1
r i ,/ l 1
� I - T �_
/ r , t '1 1`,
`�t __
i 1 1' 1 , 'f
T � , l � 1 =; r r 1
0 IL 1 -� -_ I f C l l i
1
BUILDING 2003 �\ \ T \ .: \/T/\jai i+Till I IJ(Il(1 \L \� �l 1} I y
\ l \� -� 111 1 f1 1 M
I\ �\\ _=� //I l} � 1i\, T11 I'Il , I I 1
t 1,300,000 S.F. \� r/ /� 'I I I1� `� 11 i I1 I 1 I I I I
}.:
\ \ "== ll� lI III I1 ` 1 III II ti I \ '1 ` `I 1
\ ` , I \� _
' 1\ \ \ � �-` ;il /J 1 \\ \\"\ —~,'�T\l l `t,1 � , +, \ \I _` 1 , , - ; /
y \ _ % �y
_�
\\,
r h
T ,,
- d 1 -
I I
_ r` /' -ice /'
WETLAND 13 IMPACT 8 J I -- /
T• r/
/% I _
_ �r� -
V.0.25 AC PERMANENT I _ r I 1 � - . � _ \. o _ � -
'1' - 11 I � - -� - T
�i� J J i - %� - / -
h -r
- J %i ✓
\i ( :1 i
� 1 11 � T _
I � I I , r �'
i I J1 // r
_ I �.
� I I r ,- r' I I / r:'
I II _
I I i ,
I I _ -
/ 1
\ f r Y
1 ,\ , STREAM 11 IMPACT 5 ,
f %=
ff
f I
r / `�- - III
T/ 1 - _ 1
81 L.F PERMANENT i 1 �I i
-- _ ,l I r
I 1 ,. / I
1 \ , \ 1 /
r � -
STREAM 10 IMPACT 4 � _ _
- I
-i , I t
, / I l
I r; r \ .
1
! r, _ f
- �' r STREAM- -
1 -
44fl LF PERMANENT � r I 'r
i`
i
l � �I 1 1 J - 1
I \ / i
f y 11
_ � 1
1
� 1
\ I 30 STREAM - - BUFFER
I _ \1
�� 1 I
\/"// I I
_ t
1 II
T I r
T-i
I —
1
,, Tt 1
1 `1 I I / -
f II , -
�� �II
:i 11
/ -
I I I _
�` I i
\ _ - 11 l - \
S l /' 1
\ I ! r
• � 1 \ I t' I I ./ I I
I 1 I I 11'
/ ,
- I^ 1 I � -
- � / , T' � /� ,,, III -� / '; I I
1 I I,
r
L 1 I 4` I i I
-� ;' I f i '. \11 ,
,_ ;��`_ - _�•� _ _ \ I I \I•ll 1, 11111 1 I� L' i I !
/ ` \ `, 1
\ T \
_ / ) \ „ I
- 1
I \ I
-� \ \', 1l� I , 1
LI _ -�
_ \ l 11 1
T� _ T r
i _ - 11' I 1 1 \
_ RTY LINE - / .1
_T J � , I 1 I ,
/ I
- - / f -T l __ �T T;
1 i ~i \ ,
-` � - -) I' i / - _ - - - 11 4T - l f rr 'I ti_;..�__ �/- - /i�,/1, , I
_ l
•> �� �� : ,' �� r - � T �-` � � \. ,j� 1._ I t l.•r- , �j, /I%'%r' ��r ]I I i � - - ;; � r I
_ x / / I I i- 1 r i 1 I J� /' � i __ 1 /
\ / �/ % I i
_ / . \, ti ` I __ \ / I 1 r >' %�'l/ I >> lI ///I//I�f � �1 IT \ , '" j j 'i I r ,
I
rf 'I% .\\ / L.,.% ( j / \
\ r \
--_ '� - - - t � ri; \ 1 I' III l- \ \
0 9 TOPOGRAPHIC WETLAND IMPACT EXHIBITS
im e )))o"mr7lllllllll """"""""""""` lllllllllllllllllllllll1���rn NORTHPOINT - GASTONIA SHEET 2 of 2 0 125' 250' 500' 750' NORTH
09/01 /2020

APPENDIX D
Off -Site Alternatives

_rouseti 14_ 5 fo
E
14
A
IWEvrE�
SCKjmE Lucia
1 rlte
FJ�$4h L5 - .
WW N�G� _ SHEET 5
ALTERNATIVE SITE #4
SHEET 6 -
Island
ALTERNATIVE SITE #5 I '
SHEET 3
i
ALTERNATIVE SITE #2Mount H I l '
Buse ev On cpomft Ranio
PROJECT SITE W. Pan*
- I OWel : `
.3asto 71a
I
SHEET 2 13
fi IAA 1�1.
ALTERNATIVE SITE #1 WK00Y CJK)4t
rum r}rwn � F
e
. FAMM MNO
SHEET 1k. .+IERO>j i
QPA-�Ws ALTERNATIVE SITE #3
1 Bow! ing Grem
I _
9 Star Aac
-�,
r�
i ,� t
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
� x
0 6250 12500 25000
CONCEPT PLAN KEY MAP
Kimlerfflorv-1�7 SOUTH TRVON STREET, SUTE 200 P"a019
T HARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLIN.28202
HONE ]04-3335131
DATE: 09-15-2020 SHEET 1 of 6
THIS CUCIINEXT 7LWIHEFE W7H THE OOFJMPTr AM DMU S PFESOTIECT HERSIFL AS AM NSTMIMERT EF SERVPM IS IHTEIIRER DILLY FUR 7HE SPEURD PLIR0346E AND CUENT FOR YNEH IT WE PIREP4RER. (REUSE OF AND INPROPER RELJ4XCE UN THIS EICCU ENT ATHERJT YMTTEf1 WJTMRPATIRJ AND AMQPMTM R'f KIYLEV—HDFIN AND AI MATES. NU SHALL RE 1THCUT UAHUTY TO IUN-ESLHENTI AND ASSCUATEE INC—

I
f--..
Lf
�l
%A R.GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
LLLL 1' y
LEGEND
------------
BUILDING SETBACK
]]
NHD STREAMS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
STREAMS (APPROX.
FROM LIDAR)
NWI WETLANDS
F REQUIRED PARKING
//; EMPLOYEE PARKING 1229
TRUCK PARKING 855
REQUIRED POND
TOTAL AREA:
243.5-AC±
IMPERVIOUS AREA:
171.E-AC±
REQUIRED POND
17.2-AC±
AREA':
PROVIDED POND
17.7-AC±
AREA:
'IT IS ASSUMED 10 % OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA WILL BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEAK ATTENUATION OF THE REQUIRED
DESIGN STORM EVENTS
SITE IMPACTS
STREAM IMPACT: 8,605-LF±
WETLAND IMPACT: 0-AC±
I
SITE DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL AREA:
243.5-AC±
BUILDING AREA:
50.8-AC±
BUILDING SQUARE
FOOTAGE:
2,214,160-SF±
SITE COVERAGE
26.7%
EVALUATION
�---- SUBSTANTIAL STREAM IMPACT CAN NOT BE AVOIDED
ON THIS SITE. THIS SITE HAS LARGE GRADE CHANGES
BETWEEN BUILDINGS THAT WILL REQUIRE RETAINING
^, WALLS. BUILDING 2003 EXPANSION AND SOME
r{ PARKING FALL OUTSIDE OF SITE BOUNDARY.
rr r
Kimley)))Horn PHON00043NOR3H AR0 INA282020019
- SFIALL NE OT140l1T LUALITY TO NI11LE1I AND ASMIMATES ING

n
QVS f' f
'r r.-
YAN
77
Alternative Site #2 - CONCEPT PLAN
DATE: 09-17-2020 SHEET 3 of 6
V,—I-,LM -
—
NbRT}i
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 375 750 1500
LEGEND
------------
BUILDING SETBACK
»
NHD STREAMS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
STREAMS (APPROX.
FROM LIDAR)
NWI WETLANDS
REQUIRED PARKING
EMPLOYEE PARKING 1542
TRUCK PARKING 1042
REQUIRED POND
TOTAL AREA:
319.8-AC±
IMPERVIOUS AREA:
158.8-AC±
REQUIRED POND
15.9-AC±
AREA':
PROVIDED POND
16.3-AC±
AREA:
'IT IS ASSUMED 10 % OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA WILL BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEAK ATTENUATION OF THE REQUIRED
DESIGN STORM EVENTS
SITE IMPACTS
STREAM IMPACT: 3,689-LF±
WETLAND IMPACT: 3.0-AC±
SITE DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL AREA:
319.8-AC±
BUILDING AREA:
84.0-AC±
BUILDING SQUARE
FOOTAGE:
3,658,080-SF±
SITE COVERAGE
26.3%
EVALUATION
SUBSTANTIAL STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACT CAN
NOT BE AVOIDED ON THIS SITE.
NO3NR3STREET
N2802 �019
PO004OCA OLIA 2Kimley/)HornH

r�
A
r�.
€I1
2
0 C
lob ►.
_f.
V 1V-�j `1tiJ'
J
8
1
oe
s v
x `4 !
62
Alternative Site #4 - CONCEPT PLAN
-fee
+ter:
. 4 " Alp- -
0
n
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 375 750 1500
LEGEND
------------
BUILDING SETBACK
]]
NHD STREAMS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
STREAMS (APPROX.
FROM LIDAR)
NWI WETLANDS
REQUIRED PARKING
EMPLOYEE PARKING 1398
TRUCK PARKING 922
REQUIRED POND
TOTAL AREA:
283.3-AC±
IMPERVIOUS AREA:
152.4-AC±
REQUIRED POND
15.3-AC±
AREA':
PROVIDED POND
15.6-AC±
AREA:
'IT IS ASSUMED 10 % OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA WILL BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEAK ATTENUATION OF THE REQUIRED
DESIGN STORM EVENTS
SITE IMPACTS
STREAM IMPACT: 3,509-LF±
WETLAND IMPACT: 0-AC±
SITE DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL AREA:
283.3-AC±
BUILDING AREA:
73.6-AC±
BUILDING SQUARE
FOOTAGE:
3,204,480-AC±
SITE COVERAGE
26.0%
r
EVALUATION
j
llJ
SUBSTANTIAL STREAM IMPACT CAN NOT BE AVOIDED
ON THIS SITE. THERE IS LONG CONNECTION FROM
THE SITE TO THE NEAREST COMMERCIAL ROAD.
Kimley-MornPHONE0043NOR3H �ARD�INA282020019

110
r
7 _
\ \ III
;��-J
I \ \
e,-
ArROPosEo ei,. JJ
4 \ \
1 t
"u1 6&Lunn 3 L.L A - -
. `ems►' ! Mis
77 S,
Alternative Site #5 - CONCEPT PLAN •
1��rn1 g
1' DATE: 09-17-2020 SHEET 6 of 6 "- - -
TRni nn[lIiFNT. TnPF'IRF'N w71I IMF fYPMFWM ►M nFOMR GRFCF11TM WMI AR AN INCTiILFNT nF SF'RMEF. IS WFFNIFn nNI Y FM TFIF qPF(IFV7 Pt]RPnCF ANn M IFNT FM VMrM IT WL4 PRFPARFn. RFLLSF OF ►Nn IMMrAWR RFI uwCF m TNL4 nmIUFNT wTROIIT MMF'N AIITFInIiI7►71nN ANn ■NAPT►TVRI RY INNI FY-NORY W7 aCCm►TFC. Mr.. ANaI I IF w7Nni
NbRT}i
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
v 375 750 1500
LEGEND
- - - - - - - - - - - -
BUILDING SETBACK
»
NHD STREAMS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
STREAMS (APPROX.
FROM LIDAR)
~`•
NWI WETLANDS
REQUIRED PARKING
yy EMPLOYEE PARKING 1263
TRUCK PARKING 870
REQUIRED POND
TOTAL AREA:
328.4-AC±
IMPERVIOUS AREA:
149.E-AC±
REQUIRED POND
15.0-AC±
AREA':
PROVIDED POND
16.3-AC±
AREA:
'IT IS ASSUMED 10 % OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA WILL BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEAK ATTENUATION OF THE REQUIRED
DESIGN STORM EVENTS
SITE IMPACTS
STREAM IMPACT: 7,130-LF±
WETLAND IMPACT: 0.1-AC±
SITE DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL AREA:
328.4-AC±
BUILDING AREA:
77.2-AC±
BUILDING SQUARE
FOOTAGE:
3,363,840-SF±
SITE COVERAGE
23.5%
EVALUATION
SUBSTANTIAL STREAM IMPACT CAN NOT BE AVOIDED
ON THIS SITE.
ey )>) Horn200 SOUTH TRVON STREET, SUITE 200 V2019
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CARO LINA 28202
PHONE [phone]
T UA ILITY TO KMFFHORN ANO ASWUATES. INC.

li -
�' rrra � c N
Dallas
q8W* Bessemer City
� f, ,,� r Gastonia
}Cings y,fi' :'
Rd M 9Nntain
A
SaithGastonia t k
�0/(ut tbunta'%,
I $Mlle bark ?j
0 5 10
Mile
a
1.
IIIIPIO
rival
d
ff
d
ernative Site
Kimley>Morn
Mountain view
r y
d b
F fed;,sea Avr w
rMhhe=trey kre
� C7n'e7�A¢kvr
i. .r w"'�..dOs
% ps,o's
O°
a
Spy �
►J
T ""to.
0 C4
'3m�
e
Q
R
Re
a
o`
0
A
Y
7
f
nv
�orrn �y J �d
n ti-rhs Clr
V Al �'7bl
e
Feet
0 2,000 4,000
Rd
Alternative Site 2
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend
Alternative Site ��� + y ` t -� !ram + r •+- w■y • +� -
t
INT
—i ._r►, r
96
f 9\/ I J
0 WO
_ 71j,
also
loe
• r
f' •• ■ :Gemble
I 1 l
ir
C { / f ■
!i • j • s. _ • r w • k
Feet
'a 0 1,000 2,000 '
Alternative Site 2
Figure 2
USGS Topographic Map (Bessemer City)
Kimley>Morn Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend N
U,Alternative Site 2.01
IFMapped Streams (NHD)
Mapped Wetlands (NWI) .
FEMA Floodwrie '� a40
Zone AE (100 Year Floodplain) i-" =h ;'� r '' 1 r y; 14 f`
Zone X (Area of Minimal Flood Hazard)
T
Feet
4 0 1,000 2,000
Alternative Site 2
Figure 3
NHD, NWI, and FEMA Floodplain Map
Kim ey>Morn Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Ir
rwr
Legend t� :r . ,'�, 4►, _ N
r v Alternative Site 1�
-t• a� .�
r SSURGO Soils vi }§ �_ t�:f` �]>• act �. ' ' '� ' Y.•;
t Hydric Rating
i Not Hydric (0%)
Hydric (1-32%)
�. Hydric (33-65%) \•?6; a` rT* �"..,.. �/�
Hydric (66-99 )
gD iD AAR
-
lIM fAO' D S
s
lim
29
s. r
0 1,000 2,000
tea' .,r�_ * �•_. _. t - - -- .,
Kimley >)) Horn
Alternative Site 1
Figure 4
SSURGO Soils
Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend
Alternative Site 8
Mapped Wetlands (NWI)
Mapped Streams (NHD)
Approximate Streams Delineated off UDAR
Elevation (ft)
High : 890
J - Low : 681
W
Kimley>Morn
4�f, 1
PP
1. .�
�.A
J
= Feet
2,000
Alternative Site 2
Figure 5
LiDAR
Gaston County, NC

10 N FLA^y n` i ra. " r7essamnr eir4
A
�
1�. �rYor� � � � x --
c R,n +ham aun 60"'.'4
ativ' 6*1�� West Gill; Izisj
N 'A QaIFa8 44 nt q
3�a1 yt'' n�
l,vrag8w* Bessemer City a ` ;•
e
N Ir"I b
Gaf'tonia
.,
par.1 Or
Rd WOO
end A Wlyd'r'dOd 9r e
i 5 to a
�ra1tide� Gastonia R� o �' v
5131e Park e
0 5 10
Mile
F � y
�rr �nni,w uau Ur
L
Rd
VIA5_
J� mad a ti �
5
Ry gprinfl Yale ey ❑r
o % °
a � a 9 g x a6r
senarur U,"hAn Artnui Nwur tir+Y � ro
y'ue c a C � 9 C Sa7�r+1 Or
�. ry Ccratn
p«f1C
a'"Y tr
s• Cyr
I`ap a ��s: �iyfi
�Cbi
f yr rTM%tm ¢ynd V,norY t° o
Legend Uwrn_
- Feet
Alternative Site 2�. 0 2,000 4,000
S
Alternative Site 2
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Kimley>Morn Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend � � ' _ .� • .. -- - -- � ,� .+ N
u Alternative Site 2�■r " _ l�r� •
• • r
Jt
AZ
- N.-,N
IL
■
%N '4� r Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Alternative Site 2
Figure 2
USGS Topographic Map (Bessemer City)
Kimley>Morn Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend 3a
D_
Alternative Site Y
4 SSURGO Soils
r 5r Hydric Rating -� '. ' �. _�
c Not Hydric (0%) L ' f 4 ;. y -•
Hydric (1-32%) �' { }5 IL I '
Hydric (33-65%)
Hydric (66-99%)17
�„ ♦ �� '
Fir
l-
i
IRWOO Mom► '
_ CTra _ i � •j M y�Y,1
gS3 IPA JAr.R r
Ado
71 Ah''11 ,
Feet
r^ 0 1,000 2,000
r '-
Alternative Site 2
Figure 4
oils
Kimley ))) Horn GastonJRGO Counnty, NC
September 2020

h S�
Gas ton la � Franklin g�y�
ings �'
ntain
� e
~ 5
q
d
5
South a
Gastonia R�
90
1yG H CAROLINA
tt; cARauNA
321�
Rp
�
0
5 10
Mile
.p q-
a
36� q4 • nn
i
Yr
da 4 i
LLR�
4
� Qrrargry Rd g5dpe1 Rd
a �
Legend
Alternative Site 3
Kimley>Morn
ua
h°
1i2YRncrast C[
'> ![rc kapoo Auu
i
hfl
.-.. S44aW np Sir �0M0%?Rfl
N
R�
e p
a� Ly q'y9 e
Zr�i tlr
a n
tea¢
LontlpyjOr llr ��
4rir4} ra
�r a
y , � �ry4,r
crR a.
u Q
a
Farhaa Hd
Ot
f
e
a
t ¢a
`�+,rs a■q
a a`" ' c
y o
G �4x�o
Feet
0 2,000 4,000
Alternative Site 3
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend
L—JAlternative Site 3 r k rr • ` z' rt "; II ,
1 te_ • . t_ �r a,
} .._ ,
SO
bN
1 , L
IIN
erg #-
f
jai
_ � ' � � ■ ■..fit=
_ � � �� � � r � � � � �' ` r� •, _~+~icy �
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Alternative Site 3
Figure 2
USGS Topographic Map (Gastonia South)
Kim ey>Morn Gaston County, NC
September 2020

f.
+, �"
..;fry,. ;� ,.� �•��
•
��
Legend
^• �'�_'
� Alternative Site 3
_,.��h'
'� _ r
SSURGO Soils
_A" "r�
Hydric Rating
Not Hydric (0%)
Hydric (1-32%)
h
Hydric (33-65%)
A�
Hydric (66-99%)
'• . .
ram.• mauz .r
_ MaE
MaD2
MaB2
r '
Ur
MaB2 MaD2 MaB2 MaD2
MaD2 MaB2
aD
r� .•rSrj . - N
a
LM
IZI LM c
Limb Mb
QL1�
cru
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Alternative Site 3
Figure 4
SSURGO Soils
Kimley o Horn Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Huntersvi lie
ti
=
a �4�
Rd
dPit$'
c�cDrd
8r6A
by fk,dpd
�r y�
mill. BA"'
09
`
F
^
C.rt,lln.[JIy
lJ
a.
-
4,
Ln y 4r
�� +rw
MK
>wur cre�
Harrisburg
NI
a R,
ti
0
A
7 I
a
0 5
10
_
Mile
s,
a c�Y'•
loryn
l
c
�
`fj
y a -- 'a�.:
��
l� � i gp, �W
•p �+p� s+Alq BHq �
C4
•l,
�t Ma'
n kenpriCY. Multi Pit
P,r Rd
a N'oode rl
t
\
O
❑r
T
R
� p
^n
�
^
Msll. Cree
Witt L) is ~
4
gR�r. i.n f
9`
-UP
,
9 '0d
- IWrah�ad Rd
-
.-
EwW,
dq iy
• Dr
�..�
�ns
Legend
e
Ro•
Feet
Alternative Site 4
K ��
r ��tinmlcr .
0
2,000 4,000
o
s n q
� d
Alternative Site 4
Figure 1
Kimley>Morn
Vicinity Map
Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2020

• - ���--yam �' _ - ' {� �� r _ } .. �� � 7 ; ,, `f • �� �:..I� . �� N
Legend
"Alternative Site 4
t � •./ =
dp
7jo,-
•
PIP
f NI. _ .
41
�► ti. f r \ r
t � r
■ f .�r `� j ' Feet
.' 0 1,000 2,000
11 r
Alternative Site 4
Figure 2
USGS Topographic Map (Harrisburg)
Kim ey>Morn Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2020

`N
N
?
i. a S.r J4.
Stanley
It arr
Dal las-Spencer*
�4y R
a
n
cc9A
*dy
4e51y Rd
Y
m Dallas
+t
PAT
ry
�$
Gastonia
E Franklin 9rr�
�.�'
y` Spencer
4
S
civic
Mountain
art. I
E
,� �
4f Bdmant N�
�aa q
rrau4
'ko-
South x rL' r
�
G astonia 0 5
''
10
Mile
�''°"
A a
s
., •
,
b
uq
a
De -
� Lnrratrn ilr
844aredwootl
a,
alydnrcr�n D,
Monforey park
° lop Or y
� t �,�
Lynn Af
larnar�a
Ln 8 pa � tl,�ye
■
6
A capuico ilr
cd6p . 4
•A�
�4n kaf§I
D rillqA�•
2 nd Are
{ +
c:lrs Mrays Cl
c
° T cwtr
¢
T
y
RyyMr aroo�rveas
r�
4. �'
Ur s Q Y r '�
is e 1 u
? o 'n
oyc'
f E Spencer Ave ��r. n
7rp Ave 9
.
A
Wi'kf"-br
❑
'f' v
` +J
g°rk �G
PL Walnvt Avc S4
rd� qe
n r
n a pveS
Spring4ala o
$
a Ath Ac Are
N
tr
"r
q�
Ir
'• t
C56M In 1•
W
* 5;kAvr
y'M1c 4
aple Aye
*,them Rd
m
7
g
'
_d"¢
V%IInr0M Dr
[+ �M
Rani❑ Z
Q� Sr ro4y
e-
,Axalra Dr Ara
y p
f r Ranh Ave
5
lip
Legend
q7
alru =
P�ltrYneS[ 4cnn[ Aac
ra H ��ar
,.Pat 51 h
Dr
Feet
Alternative Site 5 -
-snuk�s[
0
2,000 4,000
�
h Burton Hills
EJ
-
1Ya{lu
Alternative Site 5
Figure 1
Kimley>>)Horn
Vicinity Map
Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend , �•��, y �.' �� f 7 y■ N
Alternative Site 5
fIr 4 �� 4 ■ ` . fV'
Pencer Mour
.� ,x j
I rey
1 � r
96dto Tawler,
t�
Ra
WT r
1
fe&CR Jig
r - ► ��, . e` Feet
{ 4 ; 0 1,000 2,000
., _ 1' � ' ► �. -. � r ' f sari r � _ , ' i -ti,
Alternative Site 5
Figure 2
USGS Topographic Map (Gastonia N and Mount Holly)
Kimley>Morn Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend
Alternative Site 5
Mapped Streams (NHD)
Mapped Wetlands (NWI)
FEMA Floodwrie
Zone AE (100 Year Floodplain)
Zone X (Area of Minimal Flood Hazard)
Kimley>Morn
s
I' 'r�
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Alternative Site 5
Figure 3
NHD, NWI, and FEMA Floodplain Map
Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend
Alternative Site 5 i >
SSURGO Soils
Hydric Rating
Not Hydric (0%)
C Hydric (1-32%)
Hydric (33-65%)
0�1
i f
4411111111111
Hydric (66-99%)
Kimley>»Horn
i LdD2 LdB2 TaB
ch TaD
TaB
LcE TaE
LcE ChA TaE
TaD aB
-
r a E W TTaB Ta
TaB
CeB2 TaB TaD TaD
WkD Wk CeB2 TAB TaD
TaE TaD TaB
Wk
P4" WkD CeD2 TaE UwF
C HA
r PaE PaE UwF
LdD2
LdD2 CeD2 TAD
PaE ChA TAB TAD TaD
LdB2 PaE CeD2 TAB TaB
- CeD2 CfB GfB �
B2
� 4 TAD
CfB TaD
y t
GfB
Alternative Site 5
Figure 4
SSURGO Soils
Gaston County, NC
September 2020

Legend
Alternative Site 5
Mapped Wetlands (NWI)
Mapped Streams (NHD)
++ Approximate Streams Delineated off UDAR
Elevation (ft)
High : 1261
Low :618
•
+
r
Kimley>Morn
rrd:�
ri
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Alternative Site 5
Figure 5
UDAR
Gaston County, NC
September 2020

APPENDIX E
On -Site Configurations

c� S
On -site Alternative 1 -CONCEPT PLAN
DATE: 09-17-2020
-��mEaM BUILDING 300:- ��
� ^SF
J rs
n- ,sir _D7 �11_11�;
° � I
Y 1.3opNG 2pp3
000 SF
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 375 750 1500
-
LEGEND
- — — — — — — — — — — -
BUILDING SETBACK
>>
JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS
PUBLIC ROW -NOT
INCLUDED IN
OVERALL
DEVELOPMENT
REQUIRED PARKING
EMPLOYEE PARKING 2263
TRUCK PARKING 1018
REQUIRED POND
TOTAL AREA:
357.9-ACt
IMPERVIOUS AREA:
184.4-ACt
REQUIRED POND
18.4-ACt
AREA':
PROVIDED POND
29.2_ACt
AREA:
'IT IS ASSUMED 10 % OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA WILL BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEAK ATTENUATION OF THE REQUIRED
DESIGN STORM EVENTS
SITE IMPACTS
STREAM IMPACT: 3,050-LFt
WETLAND IMPACT: 2.63-ACt
SITE DEVELOPMENT
Kim1ey'/&/'/%
TOTAL AREA:
357.9-ACt
BUILDING AREA:
95.0-ACt
BUILDING SQUARE
FOOTAGE:
4,138,000-SFt
SITE COVERAGE
26.5%
Horn PHON�o043NOR3�ARo��NA�B�o��019

is
II
AMP
/ BUILDING 1003
L 1 *513.780 S.F.
rr BUILDING 2003
jo. "Z�
IIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIAIpllllllll . 1\O`
main,,
• 9 }'
I
:t
�
�
1C
On -site Alternative 2 - CONCEPT PLAN
DATE: 09-17-2020
-UUFTaT. TO(FIHFR WTH THE I
�71
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 375 750 1500
LEGEND
-----
BUILDING SETBACK
)>
JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS
PUBLIC ROW NOT
INCLUDED IN
OVERALL
DEVELOPMENT
REQUIRED PARKING
EMPLOYEE PARKING 2263
TRUCK PARKING 1018
REQUIRED POND
TOTAL AREA:
357.9-AC±
IMPERVIOUS AREA:
173.7-AC±
REQUIRED POND
17.4-AC±
AREA':
PROVIDED POND
30.1-AC±
AREA:
'IT IS ASSUMED 10%OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA WILL BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEAK ATTENUATION OF THE REQUIRED
DESIGN STORM EVENTS
SITE IMPACTS
STREAM IMPACT: 700-LF±
WETLAND IMPACT: 1.6-AC±
SITE DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL AREA:
357.9-AC±
BUILDING AREA:
91.1-AC±
BUILDING SQUARE
FOOTAGE:
3,861,920-SF±
SITE COVERAGE
25.5%
Kimley)))HornPHONEZoo SOUTH NOR STREET, S ITE 200®2019
CHARLOTTE, NORTH �RoLINAzBzoz
704-3335131

APPENDIX F
Compensatory Mitigation

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Ian McDonald
Northpoint Development
4825 NW 41st Street, Suite 500
Riverside, MO 64150
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmen tat Quality
September 17, 2020
Expiration of Acceptance: 3/17/2021
Project: North Point Development- Gastonia County: Gaston
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
Catawba
03050102
Riparian Wetland
1.18
Catawba
03050102
Warm Stream
700
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.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact [e-mail].
cc: Chris Tinklenberg, agent
Sincerely,
FOR James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
wcaricaRo DNA
DHE Q�
Din.hA dER.,h_QMiNe
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mttigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): North Point Gastonia Logistics Center 2. Date of evaluation: 4/14/2020
3. Applicant/owner name: North Point Development, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Chris Tinklenberg / Kimley Horn
5. County: Gaston 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Duharts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.263409,-81.116850
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S5 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -100 If
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 F Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? C Yes C No
14. Feature type: r Perennial flow C Intermittent flow 7 Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) N_ Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (1) f Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic % l
valley shape (skip for fi a
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip i Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) (: Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) { Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes f No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water I Classified Trout Waters V Water Supply Watershed ( r' I f II C III f-. IV C V)
F Essential Fish Habitat F Primary Nursery Area F High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property F NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
F Anadromous fish F 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
F Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
F Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? C Yes (: No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
C: A Waterthroughout assessment reach.
i' B No flow, water in pools only.
C C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
C A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
C A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
C: B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
C. A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
C B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
C. A < 10 % of channel unstable
C B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
C C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
{ A P' A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B r. B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
{ C r' C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a

man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B FYrPgg\/P sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
I C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach audcausing a water quality problem
Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
IF Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
7 IF Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
IF (a Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F IM Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F 11 Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
F14 Little to no stressors
8. Weather -watershed metric
OWfte 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought, for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
r A\ Drought conditionsaad no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r IN Drought conditionsaad rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 UW Or Dangerous Stream -assessment reach metric
Vn C-- No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. IftkWVW1 In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
Yes 4 No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
11@10. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w F F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
o (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F M G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent `o F H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r ° 1 Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r F 1 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O F K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
***************** -* REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS*****************
11. Mkd%nm and Substrate - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ito- (" Yes C: No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
111b.. Elledform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
f B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
Fv C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
1 if_ Ihi riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one
box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should
not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
UP R C
A P
C r' (
C C Bed rock/sa pro lite
C Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
C C f
C C Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r r- f
C C Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
i r C
C C Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
C C
C C Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
r r
C r' Detritus
C Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
114. r' Yes { No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aqwiliiic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11. C: Yes r' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
NINo, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. C No Water f Other:
r' Yes R: No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
11 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
F F_ Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
{ Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
F Asian clam (Corbicula )
F F- Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
{ Dipterans (true flies)

F F Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F F Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
F Midges/mosquito larvae
F Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F F Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
F Salamanders/tadpoles
F F Snails
I Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
[ Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
s A C A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C B f B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
C' A f A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
C B ( B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C f C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
?— Y C Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
C: N f: N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F_ F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
C: A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
{ B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
f C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
C A f A f A f A >_ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
{: B (—. B (: B r: B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C f C f C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
C D C D C D ( D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
C E f E f E r- E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
C A
r' A
Mature forest
B
r. B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C,
r-
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
C D
f' D
Maintained shrubs
s E
f' E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).

If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: I�
Abuts
< 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB
RB
LB RB LB RB
r A
r A
r A r A r A r A Row crops
r B
r B
r B r B r B r B Maintained turf
r C
r C
r C r C r C r C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
r D
r D
r D r D r D r D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
(: A
R A
Medium to high stem density
C B
( B
Low stem density
C C
( C
No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(: A (: A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
C B ( B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C ( C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition - First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r) A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
G B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C () C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity- assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. r Yes (: No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r A <46 (- B 46 to < 67 r) C 67 to < 79 r" D 79 to < 230 (') E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name NorthPoint Gastonia Logistics Center
Stream Category Pb2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 4/14/2020
Assessor Name/Organization iris Tinklenberg / Kimley He
NO
YES
NO
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): North Point Gastonia Logistics Center 2. Date of evaluation: 4/14/2020
3. Applicant/owner name: North Point Development, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Chris Tinklenberg / Kimley Horn
5. County: Gaston 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Duharts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.270488,-81.110974
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S8 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -50 If
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 F Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? C Yes C No
14. Feature type: r' Perennial flow N_ Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) N_ Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (1) f Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic % l
valley shape (skip for fi a
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip t Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) ( Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) { Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes r' No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water I Classified Trout Waters V Water Supply Watershed ( r' I f II C III t- IV G V)
F Essential Fish Habitat F Primary Nursery Area F High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property F NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
F Anadromous fish F 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
F Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
F Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? C Yes (: No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
C: A Waterthroughout assessment reach.
i' B No flow, water in pools only.
C C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
C A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
C A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
C: B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
t: A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
C B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
C. A < 10 % of channel unstable
C B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
C C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r` A i' A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
r' B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
{ C r C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a

man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B FYrPgg\/P sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
I C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach audcausing a water quality problem
Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
IF Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
7 IF Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
IF (a Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F IM Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F 11 Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
F14 Little to no stressors
8. Weather -watershed metric
OWfte 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought, for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
r A\ Drought conditionsaad no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r IN Drought conditionsaad rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 UW q)r Dangerous Stream -assessment reach metric
Vn C-- No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. IftkMVWl In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
11tt..Yes r No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
11@Ib. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
rn A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w F F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
o (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F m G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent `o F H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r ° 1 Sand bottom
F-1 C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r F 1 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
F-1 D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O F K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
✓ E Little or no habitat
***************** -* REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS* ********-
11. Mkd%nm and Substrate - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ito- (" Yes C: No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
1111fm.. Elledform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
f B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
i� C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
1 if_ Ihi riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one
box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should
not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
UP R C
A P
C r- (
C C Bed rock/sa pro lite
C Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
C C f
C C Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
C r' f
C C Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
C C r
C C Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
C C
C C Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
C C
r' C' Detritus
C- C f
C" C Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
114. (- Yes { No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aqw0c Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
� . (- Yes C.' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
NINo, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. C No Water f Other:
11�,C Yes (: No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
11 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
F_ Aquatic reptiles
F-1 Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
{ j Beetles (including water pennies)
F- Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
F - Asian clam (Corbicula )
F F- Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
{ Dipterans (true flies)

F F Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F F Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
F Midges/mosquito larvae
F F Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F F Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
F 7- Other fish
F-1 F Salamanders/tadpoles
F F Snails
I Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
C' A r- A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
i B C B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
C' A f— A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
C B ( B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
?— Y C Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
C: N C: N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F_ F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
C A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
{ B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
is C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
C A C A (— A C A >_ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
{ B C B C B r B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C C C C— C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
r. D C: D {: D (. D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
C' E C" E C E C' E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider
for left
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
C A
r' A
Mature forest
C B
r B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C. C
C. C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
C D
C' D
Maintained shrubs
s E
C' E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).

If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: I�
Abuts
< 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB
RB
LB RB LB RB
r A
r A
r A r A r A r A Row crops
r B
r B
r B r B r B r B Maintained turf
r C
r C
r C r C r C r C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
r D
r D
r D r D r D r D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
r A
r A
Medium to high stem density
G B
(' B
Low stem density
r C
r C
No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
r A r A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B r B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
G C (d C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition -First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A r) A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B () B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C f: C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity- assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. r Yes (: No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r A <46 (- B 46 to < 67 r) C 67 to < 79 r" D 79 to < 230 (') E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name NorthPoint Gastonia Logistics Center
Stream Category Pb1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 4/14/2020
Assessor Name/Organization iris Tinklenberg / Kimley He
NO
YES
NO
Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
(2) Baseflow
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): North Point Gastonia Logistics Center 2. Date of evaluation: 4/14/2020
3. Applicant/owner name: North Point Development, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Chris Tinklenberg / Kimley Horn
5. County: Gaston 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Duharts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.263409,-81.116850
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S10 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -100 If
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 F Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? C Yes C No
14. Feature type: r Perennial flow C Intermittent flow 7 Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) N_ Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (1) f Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic % l
valley shape (skip for fi a
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip t Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) ( Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) { Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes f No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water I Classified Trout Waters V Water Supply Watershed ( r' I f II C III : IV C V)
F Essential Fish Habitat F Primary Nursery Area F High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property F NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
F Anadromous fish F 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
F Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
F Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? C Yes (: No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
C: A Waterthroughout assessment reach.
i' B No flow, water in pools only.
C C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
C A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
C A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
C: B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
C. A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
C B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
C. A < 10 % of channel unstable
C B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
C C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r` A - A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B r. B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
{ C r' C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a

man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B FYrPgg\/P sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
I C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach audcausing a water quality problem
Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
IF Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
7 IF Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
I (a Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F IM Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F_ 1I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
F 4 Little to no stressors
8. fA%%WA Weather -watershed metric
%rite 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought, for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
dmmht.
Drought conditions no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
Drought conditionsaad rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
No drought conditions
9 Li" Or Dangerous Stream -assessment reach metric
Vn C-- No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. IftkWVW1 In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
11tt..Yes 4 No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
11@lID. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w F F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
o (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F m G Submerged aquatic vegetation
F B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent `o r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r ° I Sand bottom
F_ C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r F 1 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
F-1 D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O F K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F7 E Little or no habitat
***************** -* REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS*****************
11. Mkd%nm and Substrate - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ito- (" Yes C: No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
111b.. Elledform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
f B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
i� C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
1 if_ Ihi riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one
box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should
not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
VP R C
A P
C r- (
C C Bed rock/sa pro lite
C Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
C C f
C C Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
C r- f
C C Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
i C C
C C Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
C C
C C Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
C C
C C' Detritus
C Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
114. i' Yes { No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11. C: Yes C' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
NINo, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. C No Water f Other:
Yes R" No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
11 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
"- Adult frogs
F_ F_ Aquatic reptiles
V F- Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
C Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
- Asian clam (Corbicula )
F_ 7 Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
[- Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
I Dipterans (true flies)

F F Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F F Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
F Midges/mosquito larvae
F Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F F Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
F_ F Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
f— A r- A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C B f B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
C' A f A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
C B ( B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C f C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
?— Y C Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
C: N f: N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F_ A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F_ F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
C A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
f C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
C A f A (— A f A >_ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
(— B C B C B r B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C. C f: C f: C C: C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
C D C D C D ( D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
C E f E f E r- E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
C A
r' A
Mature forest
B
r. B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C,
r-
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
C D
f' D
Maintained shrubs
s E
f' E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).

If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: I�
Abuts
< 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB
RB
LB RB LB RB
r A
r A
r A r A r A r A Row crops
r B
r B
r B r B r B r B Maintained turf
r C
r C
r C r C r C r C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
r D
r D
r D r D r D r D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
(: A
R A
Medium to high stem density
C B
( B
Low stem density
C C
( C
No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
C A ( A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
G B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C ( C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition - First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r) A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
G B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C () C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity- assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. r Yes (: No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r A <46 (- B 46 to < 67 r) C 67 to < 79 r" D 79 to < 230 (') E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name NorthPoint Gastonia Logistics Center Date of Evaluation 4/14/2020
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization iris Tinklenberg / Kimley He
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA

(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): North Point Gastonia Logistics Center 2. Date of evaluation: 4/14/2020
3. Applicant/owner name: North Point Development, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Chris Tinklenberg / Kimley Horn
5. County: Gaston 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Duharts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.264079,-81.115899
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S11 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -50 If
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1.5 F Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? Yes ( No
14. Feature type: f' Perennial flow t: Intermittent flow t Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (' Mountains (M) C-- Piedmont (P) f Inner Coastal Plain (1) Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic % l
valley shape (skip for t a
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ( Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) ( Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) i' Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? W Yes f' No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water [ Classified Trout Waters [v Water Supply Watershed ( (- I f II f III (- IV (. V)
Essential Fish Habitat F_ Primary Nursery Area F_ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property F_ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect F_ Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish F_ 303(d) List F_ CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? t- Yes {J No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
C- A Water throughout assessment reach.
t- B No flow, water in pools only.
f C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
f A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
r B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
t: B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
(: A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
t' B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability- assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
C. A < 10 % of channel unstable
t' B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
r C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
(' A {` A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
r' B (7 B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C (' C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a

man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B FYrPgg\/P sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach audcausing a water quality problem
Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
T IFF Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
hil Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
II Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
R � Little to no stressors
8. lhft"ilt Weather -watershed metric
#Wr- M 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought, for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
t ht.
A\ Drought conditions no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
° Drought conditionsaad rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
No drought conditions
9 LWi%* %r Dangerous Stream -assessment reach metric
r yft% {' No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. lft%WIWI In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
Ift.. Yes C' No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
I . Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
I A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w F F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
o (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F m f G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent `o H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r ° I Sand bottom
71 C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r `m F J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
71 D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O F K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
***************** -* REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS* ********-
11. Mdfmn and Substrate - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ilai. r Yes C. No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
1111110.. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
I B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
1 if_ Ili riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one
box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
Absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should
not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
UP R C
A P
C
( C Bed rock/sa pro lite
C Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
C C C
( C Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
C C (
; C Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
C C
C C Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
C" C C'
C" C Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
C- C C
C' C Detritus
C' C r'
C C Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
114. C' Yes C No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquoft Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1I2g. ri Yes C. No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
flNo, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. C' No Water f' Other:
11�,C Yes C. No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
11 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
I F- Adult frogs
F_ Aquatic reptiles
F F-1 Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
[ [ Beetles (including water pennies)
F F- Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
F- Asian clam (Corbicula )
F- Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
F- Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
[ [ Dipterans (true flies)

7 Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F F_ Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
F F Midges/mosquito larvae
F_ F Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F F Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
7 Other fish
71 F_ Salamanders/tadpoles
F F_ Snails
I [ Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
I F Tipulid larvae
F_ Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
C A C A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C' B C' B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C C` C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A C' A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
C B C B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
C` Y C Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
C: N C: N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
( D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
f� E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
i B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
I C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
Fo I D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
( B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C: C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
C A i A t- A t' A >_ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
( B { B C B r B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C C C r— C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
C D {: D r. D r. D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
C" E f E C E r' E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider
for left
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
C A
r A
Mature forest
C B
( B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C. C
r: C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
C D
r' D
Maintained shrubs
{ E
r' E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).

If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: I'l
Abuts
< 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB
RB
LB RB LB RB
r A
('.A
('.A (".A r A ('.A Row crops
r B
r. B
r B r B r B r B Maintained turf
r C
r. C
r C r C r C r C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
r. D
(', D
r. D (', D r D (', D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
(' A
r A
Medium to high stem density
G B
6 B
Low stem density
r C
C C
No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(' A r A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B r B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
G C f- C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition —First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A (`; A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C: C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. (' Yes (: No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. (- No Water C Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
(' A <46 (. B 46 to < 67 (, C 67 to < 79 ( D 79 to < 230 (` E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name NorthPoint Gastonia Logistics Center Date of Evaluation 4/14/2020
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization iris Tinklenberg / Kimley He
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
(2) Baseflow
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA

Overall
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: SAW-2020-00836 NCDWR #:
Project Name NorthPoint Gastonia Logistics Center Date of Evaluation 4/8/2020
Applicant/Owner Name North Point Development, LLC Wetland Site Name Wetland W2
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Chris Tinklenberg, PWS (Kimley-Horn)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Duharts Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03050102
County Gaston NCDWR Region Mooresville
r- Yes f: No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.2755740,-81.1249673
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately 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), hog 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? t: Yes r- No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? I`: Yes t" 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
f 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 HOW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
f Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
f Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) CL Lunar r- Wind C, Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r- Yes C: No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C Yes re No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes K- No
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 of an effect.
GS VS
T' A T' A Not severely altered
f: B f: 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 compaction, 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
C A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C B C B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Co 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 for each group below. 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 foot deep
r- B r- 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. t- A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
r- B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
t: 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 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 redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic 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
f B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C I- C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
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). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F AA FIA F JA >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B 7 B F B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
r 1C F-1C 7 1 C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
7 ® 7 ID 7 D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F E 7 E F E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
Ff IF F,7 IF F-7 F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G 7 G 7 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 dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio 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?
is Yes is No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (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.)
A >_ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
i' C From 15 to < 30 feet
t' 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.
i' <— 15-feet wide f> 15-feet wide r' Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C Yes f' No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(' Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
r— 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. 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 r— A >_ 100 feet
{ B f 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
C H f 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 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
Ci 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)
C A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin 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
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
A c' A >_ 500 acres
B ( B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
C D Co- D From 10 to < 50 acres
X E E < 10 acres
r- F ( F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
r- Yes r- 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. Artificial 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 directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
C A 0
CB 1to4
C 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 composed 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?
C. Yes I' 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
n C A f- A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
C [ B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
co (i C (i C Canopy sparse or absent

`o (`A (" A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
uo ^ B C B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
r: C r. C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
s (' A
r A
Dense shrub layer
i B
1W B
Moderate density shrub layer
c ('; C
i C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
s s: A
r A
Dense herb layer
(` B
i B
Moderate density herb layer
x
(' 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
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.
s: - 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).
s:-B Not
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. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A (' B - C j"D
IY
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.
ie 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

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland W2
Date
4/8/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization Tinklenberg, PWS (Kimley.
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
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)
YES
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
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
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/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: SAW-2020-00836 NCDWR #:
Project Name NorthPoint Gastonia Logistics Center Date of Evaluation 4/14/2020
Applicant/Owner Name North Point Development, LLC Wetland Site Name Wetland W13
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Chris Tinklenberg, PWS (Kimley-Horn)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Duharts Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03050102
County Gaston NCDWR Region Mooresville
r- Yes f: No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.264394,-81.115956
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately 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), hog 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? t: Yes r- No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? I`: Yes t" 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
f 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 HOW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
f Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
f Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) CL Lunar r- Wind C, Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r- Yes C: No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C Yes re No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes K- No
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 of an effect.
GS VS
T' A T' A Not severely altered
f: B f: 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 compaction, 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
C A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C B Co B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
Co C 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 for each group below. 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 foot deep
r- B r- 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. t- A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
r- B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
t: 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 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. f' A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. f 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
f B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C I— Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
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). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F AA FIA F JA >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B 7 B F B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
r 1C F-1C 7 1 C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
7 ® 7 ID 7 D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F E 7 E F E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
Ff IF F,7 IF F-7 F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G 7 G 7 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 dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio 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?
(f— Yes Ge No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (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.)
C A >_ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
f 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.
t' <— 15-feet wide (` > 15-feet wide r' Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
r Yes f No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
�— Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
f 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. 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 f A >_ 100 feet
{ B B From 80 to < 100 feet
f. C C From 50 to < 80 feet
f D ( D From 40 to < 50 feet
(� E f` E From 30 to < 40 feet
(� F f` F From 15 to < 30 feet
( G f G From 5 to < 15 feet
(� H f` 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)
f 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 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
Ci 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)
C A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin 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
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
A c' A >_ 500 acres
B ( B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
C D Co- D From 10 to < 50 acres
X E E < 10 acres
r- F ( F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
r- Yes r- 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. Artificial 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 directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
C A 0
CB 1to4
C 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 composed 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?
C. Yes I' 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
n C A f- A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
C [ B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
co (i C (i C Canopy sparse or absent

`o (`A (" A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
uo ^ B C B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
r: C r' C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
s ('.A
(- A
Dense shrub layer
r B
1W B
Moderate density shrub layer
c r)c
i C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
s A
(' A
Dense herb layer
■ B
(' B
Moderate density herb layer
x
(' C
r. 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
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.
s: - 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).
s: 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. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
fry'••, f;'''.��� t �y�'+ .�, f���l � ;' ar'',�- ��:fi�
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.
ri 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

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland W13
Date
4/14/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization Tinklenberg, PWS (Kimley.
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
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)
YES
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
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
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
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: SAW-2020-00836 NCDWR #:
Project Name NorthPoint Gastonia Logistics Center Date of Evaluation 3/25/2020
Applicant/Owner Name North Point Development, LLC Wetland Site Name Wetland W14
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Chris Tinklenberg, PWS (Kimley-Horn)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Duharts Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03050102
County Gaston NCDWR Region Mooresville
r: Yes (_ No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.272919,-81.118634
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately 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), hog 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? t: Yes r- No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? I`: Yes t" 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
f 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 HOW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
f Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
f Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) CL Lunar r- Wind C, Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r- Yes C: No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C Yes re No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes K- No
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 of an effect.
GS VS
T' A T' A Not severely altered
f: B f: 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 compaction, 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
C A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C B C B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Co 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 for each group below. 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 foot deep
r- B r- 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. t- A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
r- B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
t: 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 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 redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic 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 wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
{ C I- C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
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). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F AA FIA F JA >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B 7 B F B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
r 1C F-1C 7 1 C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
7 ® 7 ID 7 D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F E 7 E F E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
Ff IF F,7 IF F-7 F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G 7 G 7 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 dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio 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?
is Yes is No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (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.)
A >_ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
i' C From 15 to < 30 feet
t' 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.
r-e <- 15-feet wide f> 15-feet wide r' Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C Yes (e- No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(: Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
r- 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. 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 f B From 80 to < 100 feet
{- C f- 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 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
r 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)
C A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin 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
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
A c' A >_ 500 acres
B ( B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
C D Co- D From 10 to < 50 acres
X E E < 10 acres
r- F ( F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
r- Yes r- 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. Artificial 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 directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
C A 0
CB 1to4
C 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 composed 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?
C. Yes I' 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
n C A f- A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
C [ B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
co (i C (i C Canopy sparse or absent

`o (";A i A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
u9 (' B
(. B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
r: C
r C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
s (' A
r A
Dense shrub layer
(' B
1W B
Moderate density shrub layer
U) : C
i C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
s is A
(: A
Dense herb layer
(` B
i B
Moderate density herb layer
x
(' 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
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.
s: - 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).
s: 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. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A (' B C 4 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.
fi 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

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland W14
Date
3/25/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization Tinklenberg, PWS (Kimley.
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
YES
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
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
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
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

APPENDIX G
USFWS Survey Report

LL4 IN
FI aE W�1 � IFE
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
September 18, 2020
Taylor Kiker
Kimley Horn
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 299
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
[e-mail]
Dear Taylor Kiker
Subject: NorthPoint; Gaston County, North Carolina Log No. 4-2-20-486
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated September 14, 2020 (received September 15, 2020), wherein you solicit
our comments regarding project -mediated impacts to federally protected species. We submit the
following comments in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321
et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, the proposed project would entail the construction of an
undisclosed development on approximately 380 undeveloped, forested acres in Gastonia, North
Carolina. Onsite habitats appear to consist of mixed successional forest, cleared open space,
maintained rights of way, riparian habitats, perennial stream, forested wetlands, and transitional
edge habitats.
Your correspondence does not identify a federal nexus with the proposed project. Your
correspondence indicates that jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. are present onsite, but proposed
impacts, and impact avoidance measures were not described. We request that you provide our
office with this information to complete our evaluation of the proposed action'.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
Suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project area for the federally threatened
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). However, the final4(d) rule (effective as of
' Pursuant to 50 CFR §402.02, the Action Area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal
action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. Moreover, the Effects of the Action are all
consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences
of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it
would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur
later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action (see also 50
CFR §402.17)

February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat associated with activities
that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from
a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June I — July 31). Based on the
information provided, the project (which may or may not require tree clearing) would occur at a
location where any incidental take that may result from associated activities is exempt under the
4(d) rule. Although not required, we encourage you to avoid any associated tree clearing
activities during this animal's maternity roosting season from May 15 — August 15.
According to the information provided, suitable habitats also occur onsite for the federally
threatened dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), and the federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). However, targeted surveys for these species
conducted during their respective optimal survey windows detected no evidence for these
species.
In accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal agency or its
designated representative to review its activities or programs and to identify any such activities
or programs that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If it is
determined that the proposed activity may adversely affect any species federally listed as
endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at [e-mail], if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-20-486.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

From: Ouast, Karla L
To: Tinklenbera, Chris; Kiker, Taylor
Cc: Hamstead, Byron A
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: NorthPoint; Gaston County, North Carolina Log No. 4-2-20-486
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 1:28:17 PM
Hello Chris and Taylor,
Thank you for providing the information on your federal nexus. This email would serve
as the new concurrence letter and we acknowledge your negative survey results.
Therefore, we would concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect"
determination for the threatened dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis nanif/ora) and
endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). We would like to offer
general recommendations in the interest of protected natural resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground
disturbing activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing
native vegetation should be retained (if possible) to maintain riparian cover for fish
and wildlife. Disturbed areas should be revegetated with native vegetation as soon
as the project is completed. Ground disturbance should be limited to what will be
stabilized quickly, preferably by the end of the workday. Natural fiber matting (coir)
should be used for erosion control as synthetic netting can trap animals and persist in
the environment beyond its intended purpose.
Riparian Buffers
Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems. They
accomplish the following:
1. catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint-source pollutants from
reaching streams;
2. enhance the in -stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source pollutants;
3. act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods) and by
allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which maintains stream
flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and creating
logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved organic
carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions.
Thank you,

Kav-la Q"a4t
Administrative Assistant
Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, South Atlantic/Gulf Region
160 Zillicoa St.
-
--------
------ --
Asheville, NC 28801
-----------------------
karla_auastCfws.c�ov
office 828/258-3939, ext. 42232
cell 828/230-7836
From: Tinklenberg, Chris <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 6:46 AM
To: Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]>; Hamstead, Byron A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kiker, Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: NorthPoint; Gaston County, North Carolina Log No. 4-2-20-486
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on
links, opening attachments, or responding.
Good Morning Karla and Byron —Just wanted to follow up on this quickly. Will you be providing a
revised concurrence letter? If you need anything else from me, please let me know.
Thanks!
Chris
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Kimley-Horn 1200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 409 1802 1 Mobile: [phone]
From: Tinklenberg, Chris
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 10:59 AM
To: Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hamstead, Byron A <[e-mail]>; Kiker, Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: North Point; Gaston County, North Carolina Log No. 4-2-20-486
Hi Karla —Just for a little additional background... we are anticipating impacts associated with this
project to exceed 300 LF/0.5-acre and require an individual permit. The IP application is currently
being prepared but let me know if you need any additional information that would help support your
concurrence with our survey results.
Thank you!

Chris
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Kimley-Horn 1200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 409 1802 1 Mobile: [phone]
From: Kiker, Taylor <Taylor.KikerCu�kimley-horn.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 8:32 AM
To: Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hamstead, Byron A <[e-mail]>; Tinklenberg, Chris <Chris.TinklenbergC@kimle�
horn.com>
Subject: RE: North Point; Gaston County, North Carolina Log No. 4-2-20-486
Karla,
Thank you for the response. Per our request letter, we referenced USACE as anticipating future 404
permitting— does this not identify federal nexus? Just want to clarify!
Thank you,
Taylor Kiker Environmental Analyst
Kimley-Horn 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 980 296 0810 1 Mobile: [phone]
Celebrating 13 years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For
From: Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 12:58 PM
To: Kiker, Taylor <Taylor.KikerCu�kimley-horn.com>
Cc: Hamstead, Byron A <[e-mail]>
Subject: NorthPoint; Gaston County, North Carolina Log No. 4-2-20-486
Taylor Kiker,
Attached is the Services response for the proposed North Point Project. Your correspondence
does not identify a federal nexus with the proposed project. We request that you provide our
office with this information to complete our evaluation of the proposed action.
Thank you,
Kav-lw Qua4t
Administrative Assistant

Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, South Atlantic/Gulf Region
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
karla auastefws.gov
office 828/258-3939, ext. 42232
cell 828/230-7836

Kimley>»Horn
September 14, 2020
Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 ZiIIicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Re: NorthPoint —Gastonia Site
Gaston County, North Carolina
Project Review Certification Letter
Dear USFWS Asheville Field Office,
On behalf of our client, North Point Development, LLC, Kimley-Horn (KH) is submitting this letter
requesting concurrence regarding the results of the pedestrian survey performed for the above -
referenced project in accordance with the methodologies recommended by USFWS. The pedestrian
surveys were conducted by KH staff, Chris Tinklenberg and Taylor Kiker, in late March through early
April 2020, and on September 3, 2020.
Background Information
The project area is situated between W 1st Street and Interstate 85 in Gastonia and Lowell, Gaston
County, NC. The area evaluated for the approximately 380-acre project site is comprised of
undeveloped forested land. The property is bound by residential and commercial development to the
west, residential development to the north, Interstate 85 the south, and residential development to
the east. The site was cleared for timber harvest within the last 4-5 years.
NorthPoint Development intends to construct/develop a project on the subject property which may
require future authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); therefore, North Point
Development contracted with KH to perform the pedestrian survey within areas of potentially suitable
habitat on the subject property to identify and document occurrences of federally listed threatened
and/or endangered species.
Methodology and Findings
As of July 30, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four (4) federally
protected species for Gaston County (Table 1). A brief description of each species' habitat
requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the
study area.

Kimley>»Horn
Table 1: Federally protected listed species for Gaston Countv
Page 2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Habitat Present
Biological Conclusion
Myotis
Northern Long-
May affect, not likely
septentrionalis
eared Bat
T
No
to adversely affect
Clemmys
Bog Turtle
SAT
No
No effect
muhlenbergii
Hexastylis
Dwarf -flowered
T
Yes
No effect
naniflora
Heartleaf
Helianthus
Schweinitz's
E
Yes
No effect
schweinitzii
Sunflower
*E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SAT = Similarity of Appearance, Threatened
Northern Long-eared Bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1—August 15
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the mountains,
with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB
spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is not known to be a long-
distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely rare in eastern North
Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern North Carolina. During
the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of
both live and dead trees (typically >_3 inches dbh). Males and non -reproductive females may
also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat has also been found, rarely, roosting
in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in
bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally
over forest clearings, over water, and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an
important habitat type for foraging.
Biological Conclusion: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Potentially suitable summer roosting habitat for the NLEB may be present within forested
areas in the project area. The Final 4(d) rule (effective as of February 16, 2016), exempts
incidental take of NLEB associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a
known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost
tree during the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the most
current maps of confirmed/known hibernacula and maternity sites for the NLEB at
http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html. The action area
for this project is located outside of the highlighted areas/red 12-digit HUCs. There will be no
blasting, pile driving, or other percussive activities associated with the construction of the
project; however, tree-cutting/removal will occur. Based on the review, the proposed
activities in the action area occur at a location where any incidental take that may result from
the associated activities is exempt under the Final 4(d) rule; therefore, the biological

Kimley>»Horn
Page 3
conclusion of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" has been rendered for NLEB for this
project.
Bog Turtle
USFWS optimal survey window: April - October
Habitat Description: Habitat for the bog turtle primarily consists of spring -fed wetlands. Bog turtles
prefer to live in the mud, grass, and sphagnum moss of bobs, swamps, and marshy meadows.
The species prefer ample sunlight, muddy areas, and wet soils. Female bog turtles nest in June
or July and after 7-8 weeks, the eggs hatch. Bog Turtles generally retreat into more densely
vegetated areas to hibernate from mid -September through mid -April.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Potentially suitable habitat for the bog turtle is not present on the subject property. A review
of the NCNHP records, updated July 20, 2020, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile
of the subject property. Due to a lack of recorded occurrences and the absence of suitable
habitat on the subject property, the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf
USFWS optimal survey window: March - May
Habitat Description: The dwarf -flowered heartleaf is a low -growing evergreen perennial plant with
beige to dark brown or purple flowers. The species prefers acidic soils along bluffs and
adjacent slopes. The dwarf -flowered heartleaf grows in boggy areas next to stream heads,
and along the slopes of nearby hillsides.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Potentially suitable habitat for dwarf -flowered heartleaf is present on the subject property
along the slopes of hills and streams. A review of the NCNHP records, updated July 20, 2020,
indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the subject property. Pedestrian surveys
were conducted by Kimley-Horn biologists throughout areas of potentially suitable habitat in
late March through April 2020. No individuals of dwarf -flowered heartleaf were observed.
Due to a lack of recorded occurrences and the absence of observed individuals on the subject
property, the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
Schweinitz's Sunflower
USFWS optimal survey window: late August -October
Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of North and South Carolina.
The few sites where this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in relatively natural vegetation
are found in Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights -of -way,
maintained power lines and other utility rights -of -way, edges of thickets and old pastures,
clearings and edges of upland oak -pine -hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests,

Kimley>»Horn
Page 4
and other sunny or semi -sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing,
blowdowns, storms, frequent fire) help create open or partially open areas for sunlight. It is
intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other vegetation.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Potentially suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower present on the subject property along
the roadsides, open areas, and the maintained easement that receives abundant sunshine
and has minimal competition in the herbaceous layer. A review of the NCNHP records,
updated July 20, 2020, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the subject
property. Pedestrian surveys were conducted by Kimley-Horn biologists throughout areas of
potentially suitable habitat on September 3, 2020. No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower
were observed. Due to a lack of recorded occurrences and the absence of observed individuals
on the subject property, the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
USFWS optimal survey window: November through March
Habitat Description: Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large
bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within 1.0 mile of open water. A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as
the area within a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed
on September 1, 2020, using 2019 color aerials. Bodies of water large enough or sufficiently
open to be considered a potential feeding source were not identified. A review of the NCNHP
database, updated on July 21, 2020, revealed no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
study area. Due to the lack of known occurrences, and the lack of observed individuals or
nests, it has been determined that the proposed project will not affect this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Kimley»>Horn
Page 5
Statement of Qualifications:
Investigator: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Education: B.A. Geography, 2007; Certificate in Geographic Information Systems, 2007
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2007-Present;
Identified and confirmed Schweinitz's sunflower community, York County,
SC, October 2016;
Performed numerous (40+) protected species habitat assessments and/or
surveys for protected species on various public and private projects.
Responsibilities: Natural communities assessments, threatened and endangered species
habitat assessments and surveys, wetland and stream delineations, GPS, GIS,
stream and wetland functional assessments, tree surveys
Investigator: Taylor Kiker
Education: B.S. Environmental Technology and Management, 2015; M.S. Earth Sciences
— Hydrology, 2018
Experience: Environmental Analyst, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2018-Present
Responsibilities: Natural communities assessments, wetland and stream delineations, GPS,
GIS, document preparation
Please provide concurrence regarding the survey results and biological conclusions as well as any
other possible issues that might emerge with respect to protected species as a result of the proposed
project. Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please email
([e-mail]) a copy of your reply to my attention and/or send an original
copy by mail. Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or if
additional information is necessary.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Attachments

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 1 of 10
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trustresources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and
extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -
specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed
activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that
follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional
information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
Gaston County, North Carolina V�
L—
Local office
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
[phone]
[phone]
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

IPaC: Explore Location Page 2 of 10
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project
level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the
species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam
upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact
the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site
conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project
area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and project -specific
information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary_
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of
such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal
agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be
obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see
directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review,. please return to the IPaC website and
request an official species list by doing the following: 1 %we
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species
and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA Fisheriesz).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list.
Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 3 of 10
Mammals
NAME
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.3Zov/ecp/species/9045
Reptiles
NAME
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6962
Flowering Plants
NAME
STATUS
Threatened
STATUS
SAT
STATUS
.00, ��No
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Thrt
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https:/https://ecos.fwsgov/ecp/species/2458/ecp/species/2458
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849.
habitat.-
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Actz.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

IPaC: Explore Location Page 4 of 10
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorVbirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of
Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more
about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This
is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be
found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted
birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location,
desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional
maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are
available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information
about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report,
can be found below. � % #, Soo
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to
reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at
the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project
a rea. L IIIi
NAME
01,41h,
F
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or
activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
BREEDING SEASON (IFA BREEDING
SEASON IS INDICATED FORA BIRD
ON YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECTAREA
SOMETIME WITHIN THE
TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH IS A
VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE
DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD
BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE
RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE"
INDICATES THATTHE BIRD DOES
NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR
P ROJ ECT AREA.)
Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 5 of 10
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Probability of Presence Summary
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds May 10 to Aug 31
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities
to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this
report.
Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A
taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used
to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the
presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week
where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For
example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of
them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is
calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence
across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted
Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week
of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of
presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 6 of 10
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its
entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is
expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all
years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. AW % k A
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP r OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle P,
Non -BCC Vulnerable I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jill i l l - - - r bo
7s, nota 1712 f
Conservation Concern
(BCC) in this area, rut
warrants attention
because of the Eagle
Act or for potential
suscept�esinn
_o_s_ on - r_eao_m
certain types of
eve opment or
activities.)
Prothonotary +++ ♦+ #F}
Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird o ,
Zonservation concern
(BCC�trf`oughouTl;s
range in tr 7e—
continenta! SA and
as<a.
Red-headed 411# 1♦1+ on 41+ 1 A —11— 411
E
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird o
on7-7-7atron concern
throughout is
range in the
conLnentanJSA and
Alaska.)
Rusty Blackbird •r.
BCC Rangewide (CON) I I I I 1 1 I• �} 1 1 I F .F+#+. �•.+.�� . �. �• 1 +.+�+. ��'� ��}
(This is a Bird o
"=d4S°oncern
throughout its
range in the
contnentarUSA and
Alaska.)
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 7 of 10
Wood Thrush I I -t--&'E+ 444-+ 4-F4+ I .,--l- - —{,{• ­11�+}
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any
location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in
the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding
their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be
breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be
advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present
on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that
may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried
and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects,
and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle
(Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in
my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science
datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn
more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of
Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-
round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you
are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird
on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area,
there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the
bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

IPaC: Explore Location Page 8 of 10
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of
the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid
and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more
information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and
requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird
species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also
offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NCPAA NCCOS
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and AbunclanA on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. 6 % t
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including
migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this ir�formation. W additional information on marine bird
tracking data, see the Diving Bird Stu y and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle
Act should such impacts occur.
4, N.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern.
To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project
area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey
effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high
survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as
more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of
concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which
means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in
knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project
activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about
conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your
migratory bird trust resources page.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

IPaC: Explore Location Page 9 of 10
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THEREARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
District. low-toV4,0101
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our
NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of
wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PF01A
FRESHWATER POND
PUBHh
RIVERINE
R4SBC
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website
Data limitations
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 10 of 10
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information
on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery.
Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use
of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland
boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the
amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata
should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be
occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the
actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery
as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic
vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some
deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These
habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions !
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a
different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the
geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities
involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or
local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such
activities.
� <<p ON-%w
\41�lO
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5NITNMV2URG4HGPYSFAMAP4II4/resources 9/10/2020

a saw Poy Cooper. Governor
ON 'K NC DEPARTMENT OF
■iNsiw NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Susr Hamilton. Secretary
0 fo1 Walter Clark. Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-12812
September 2, 2020
Taylor Kiker
Kimley-Horn
200 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
RE. NorthPoint Gastonia Slte
Dear Taylor Kiker.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within 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.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please 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 not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DVPAR104MI OF NAYVRALL AND C"TURAL OFSQ01 ES
1) 41 V. +i,rkC-iTk[fT P"'L0611 11f 01d;l • i11 KML •;CJ'YiLX ciP4T1:G QAiC■;I• r,C ,.4 '•

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
North Point Gastonia Slte
September 2, 2020
NCNHDE-12812
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last 4W Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Vascular Plant 27910 Magnolia macrophylla Bigleaf Magnolia 2009-09-11 AC 4-Low --- Threatened G5 S2
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Gaston County Open Space Gaston County. multiple local government Local Government
City of Gastonia Open Space City of Gastonia Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httr)s://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on September 2, 2020; source: NCNHP, Q3 July 2020. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-12812: NorthPoint Gastonia 51te
R an ki
X
1
oI
� I
L0&11
��
4'arra rronr
CA urt
F$gVaru!
hlld�cal
�;�
Fi@mtlyy Ok^Irl
I
irJgs-�$®nadr7Ps14rar
! II �C
�
Q
C�aslon
E Fran#.In r7:yr�
v
Mad
v'
Ck rr�Nd6d
Club [}r
Pt
N 894 fr
Gallon Memos!
W- Y% n f}ilrk Cerrrrs�ry
x
September 2, 2020
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
❑ Managed Area (MAREA)
Rd
rS
0*f rr E �rarrkAn t31vr1 2D
pr ` hfM
�tdrpl park ��
n�
0�
i,
ha
t h�,r7 S,r
ra
a
r
1:29,899
0 0,25 0.5 1 rH
0 0.4 0.8 1.6 km
Sources: Esn. HERE Garcon. Intern v, m mr nt P Corp GESOO. USGS.
FAO, NP$ NRCAH, GmBase, IGH, Hadasrel NL. Ordnance Survey. Eui Japan -
MET] Esn China SHong Kanpf. (c) Ope S[reelMap comriburors, and the O+S
User Commonly
Page 3 of 3

=' `�4 f O1fny a zlcU e.n Rb °s'
GD
s
+ Dallas }rent 0.Je rb a'�Rd
H i
n tid'Y
n � �
ckl!7 tonl a -
E Fr
-r eir
�a r Belmont
1 =
5 OIl tlt �
Gastonia
� r -
r
nn
Mile
4 '
Cer n;rt°ehf� Rherdeen alvd
a
,* PMmhrdY.a Rd
Eaw L-a. _ . .
. b W 'V.etihllr
� { n F 0 Owl Or
�.bn Mall
r r � v t
` fF�r#fln�lrp— 77dl-
G`uqpd t Ma Plerrood Dr �' Fur
� J210,
73, E Fni
Q'.- m4 t' T� Mllggryd 3�i
e
s "r � 4 Gt�n ❑`
m
scattweeu pr i• � -Gi an �� .1 Ln
Legend
. Myttonq Park Ar OF Gardner
Park ry ci`
Project Boundary
•-star nr � � -� Q�
1,vd� 01!'.
P �erK9!
m
c°
4 �
n n
� A
myre !`=13, �_ n Rhyne OxKiarid,� �8}1 n
Kimley>>)Horn
0
A
� O b
1t o ¢ b
a`
S 5t a a
J m 4
Geer Si dam 51 4 Crap pi
,e
r
z x x
4 4 V
VL4r Rog°gin ell S
N Pay F:n A
Ar n N
`� 4 � 9 4� klarfha Avr
S, yL 1w Avr Car O`
Of ry •r Uar onnr yrn
9 p sr O` eSt�. r •,
c ¢
c Lowell !�9 �s bo esrner sr
bTrAdMenre ALra
a,
61 GT i C'� y sI Yry1r Rd _ r I+1 Fv ❑
F�
ow
rdyS °y 3U ,.-
5 a
pi r Arm
Rp
°n 4�^hap -Rrmur Rxu�n 7t+lY" fj;
Rahrgd Sr St 9 t
�a'rrtby qy '00 fn v A�gOr
l
�7 • Geri0
9 � ❑`
x
ss n`
incr.a,n :^
E Frartklrn
tr Feet
�= s
0 2,000 4,000
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
NorthPoint - Gastonia
Gaston County, NC

' Tom.
Legend
jI Project Boundary
�i 1 � � � '�.. __ i ` � B� ,.. � •'- �-S' �,� Vim;
t Ch
m �j�y�
f* red._
R-
P, i. r
L1 ¢• r e
Ib
Sl
_ --- -
i � %` mow. s•—..a ---• -.■ •[ xf,WT � t
< — A v} brook
J
4'
Jr, ip
i Feet
- 1 [
0 1,000 2,000
Kimley >>) Horn
Figure 2
USGS Topographic Map (Gaston N and Mount Holly)
NorthPoint - Gastonia
Gaston County, NC

f
ProjectBoundaryPotential T/E Habitat
Schweinitz's Sunflower
A. Dwarf -flowered sw
'Photo Locations! { r d rZ
c
rl
o _ a
• � J tt � i' ' �I.. i�� Y��
r
40
Al
_ 0 800 600

rnoto rage 1
v�
Photo 1—Maintained powerline easement and access road.
Photo 2 — Potentially suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). This habitat was dominated by
sensitive partridge pea (Chamaecrista nictitans).
Photo Pages
Project I NorthPoint- Gastonia Site
Gaston County, North Carolina
Date
14/20
Project Number
013290002
Prepared By
Kimley>»Horn

Photo Page 2

Photo Page 3
ty
_
Photo 5 —Maintained sewer line easement.
Photo 6 - Maintained powerline easement.
Photo Pages
NorthPoint- Gastonia Site
Prepared By
Project
Gaston County, North Carolina
Kimley >>Horn
Date
Project Number
9/14/2020
013290002

Photo Page 4
5
d
t �i
M1
Photo 7 — Potentially suitable habitat for Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylisnaniflora).
Photo Pages
NorthPoint- Gastonia Site
Prepared B�-
Project
Gaston County, North Carolina
Klmley '+Iorn
Date
Project Number
9/14/2020
013290002

APPENDIX H
NCSHPO Correspondence

Kimley»>Horn
March 31, 2020
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Re: North Point - Gastonia
Gastonia, Gaston County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Kimley-Horn is writing this letter on behalf of our client, NorthPoint Development, LLC, to request a review and
comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to cultural resource issues associated with the
proposed project in Gastonia, North Carolina.
The proposed project site is situated between Lowell Road and Interstate 85 (Figures 1-3). The proposed project
seeks to develop the site as industrial space with associated infrastructure, truck parking and loading areas, and
employee parking lots.
We request that you review the site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
archeological, cultural, or historic resources. If a response has not been received within 30 days we will assume
that you have reviewed the project area and that there are no issues to address at the present time.
Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please email (Add ie.Lasitter@Kimley-
Horn.com) a copy of your reply and/or send an original copy by mail. If you have any questions regarding this
request, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Adrienne Lasitter
Environmental Scientist

4
'j rS`>ulsi
Dallas
IL
.ar1Q CIFaV
r
4 irrti
i 279) ;
an
Ranlo
ar
9
1
a
P �
P,
W '
x
� z
n
a
rt
z
a
`'iI"ng rva Fnsb-idge
r.lap :�asWn
1= Pranklln gild —� F4ali
E damson Blvd
S
n
y
0
sn
' i {'t5IC4
u
L owell
C000offivanumithor Rsucl+ Nwy
'Ile
l
=• M
U
Ear khh 6[Yu Wlfkrnsan MCAdenvol
Blr�
a y
24,
C-79
Grame
L?3ct�lva
O%Id
}
�i}
'kkrripal 4iol!
b#
Ca8twi-.7
F
a ID
�ourac
y�
Creek
a �
%
v
$ Cramerion
a
�
a
�
�
r
a
°`
Miles
;zr
Haftna„+a
y
0 1 2
n
x
Legend
Kimley >>> Hvrn Project Study Area
= Gaston County
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
North Point - Gastonia
Gaston County, North Carolina

Legend
Q Project Study Area !�, ! Ranlo aat I
y•. !.
J
p i11 ! `_ Ill �..: •N �
4 f + _
I. +;����� -, J =Hyrh tilt
RtHA�gUj
Feet
rI - 0 1,000 2,000
i 74.
Figure 2
Kimley >>> Hvrn USGS Topo (Gastonia and Mount Holly)
North Point - Gastonia
Gaston County, North Carolina

• • .:.r •:�-1.-'- r� _ t('�;; Wit'• �'
Project Study Area
i �rs�ti • e'•.' •. a
t �i: -, yip +� � •� _ F4 r , r
�� Tom- t � � � i' � � - • ;jw
Miiisr
o - one
Co E
CO
6 ti
All
Lakeview
�`►��` •tee, �� ti � .r �� �4• 1
85 .. i.��y r T#
' .. �• ., ' J .. r .

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
June 5, 2020
Addie Lasitter
Kinlley-Horn
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 282020
Addie. LasitterUkimley-horn. com
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Develop industrial space and associated infrastructure, between Lowell Road and Interstate 85,
Gastonia, Gaston County, ER 20-0882
Dear Ms. Lasitter:
Thank you for your email of April 3, 2020, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have reviewed your
submittal and offer the following comments. We apologize for the delay in our response and any inconvenience
it may have caused.
This project will adversely affect the National Register -eligible Caleb John Lineberger House (GS0327). We
advise that project management determine if federal permitting, funding, or approval will be required, as
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires the resolution of adverse effects to historic
properties.
As always, we encourage the applicant to avoid the adverse effect and if that cannot be accomplished then to
minimize or mitigate. We would be happy to facilitate contact between the applicant and historic preservation
groups that may be interested in the relocation of the house.
There is one previously recorded archaeological site (31GS376) within the project area. It consists of the
remains of an early twentieth-century domestic structure. When the site was documented in 2016, further
archaeological investigations were recommended to assess whether the site is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One architectural resource, the Caleb John Lineberger House (GS0327), is
also located within the project area. This house was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion
B for its association with Gaston County textile industry pioneer, Caleb John Lineberger, and under Criterion C
for Architecture. Archaeological investigations were not conducted round the house.
We recommend that prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activities within the project area that
archaeological site 31GS376 be relocated and assessed for listing in the NRHP. We also recommend that the
area surrounding the Caleb John Lineberger House by investigated for archaeological remains that may
contribute to the resource's NRHP eligibility. Please note that our office requests consultation with the Office
of State Archaeology Review Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to archaeological
field investigations.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699A617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

This work should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior
professional qualification standards. A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an
interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at httgs://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-
consultant-list. The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct
the recommended survey.
One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as a digital copy
(PDF) of the North Carolina Site Form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) through this office, for review and comment as soon as they are available and in advance
of any construction or ground disturbance activities. OSA's Archaeological Standards and Guidelines for Background
Research, FieldMethodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation can be found online at: httgs://files.nc.gov/dncr-
arch/OSA Guidelines Dec2017.12df.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above -
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
L.WRamona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

NCSHPO Map
•
Cr
O, Rarl A
CDF'Rh
00
Y'te.S '4 nn10.v¢.
I \
'41d Dr
e Rory A.
told d
8-k, st
g
Z
rr
-
Burton Hills - '
roa
iLa{ttlS av redi o' } c 4 r
•'' r
-
p�.� on A k a
nrb'
-
r
-
r 2:
Approximate Project Location
R
Historic Resources
E Lnny-Aue
Nationai Register
o., C'259'✓:*a �'iln rm aLEwl tlino
`3
NRindi:•idual resources & certerpoints
•NR. individual Listing
+�
♦
•- NR. Listing, Gonee,qu
St cn,
.
--
* NRHD Center Point
¢
3`3,Smyte a'r oa*,.
�r Rlyy�no,u. a•ry. ed�i I
14rr
.V
,3Q
Girl
81adP°
. 8r:•i
Study List
i,e Df
3
st individual resources & centerpoints
G
o`
= n t
- z
■ bL Individual Entry
�
<A
• SL and DOE entry
It Study List Ertry, Gone
�3
Ra
SL and DOE, Gore
y
fv y` grail __ N
S,II p_„p
1
* SLHD Certer Paint
a
N_
5,.� } .+ _
• c
'rea`
* SL€:OEHD Center Pcht
urt .v,.
a Cby A
•
°
.,,, �• Z f Maa Av'
GASTDN rth
Aqt � c
`Fu.64 i
��y
❑eterm'med Eligible
��� A6ertleen
Btrd n
� � � �yeittiL pVO car�4 cSle�
u'
G53212 South For[:Endg[
d
DOE indl Vidual resources & cefiterpoint5
�� f
c
PrmbioM.B Rd
,q O.
.�2Ai L,.W ¢II• ,.yr� }° rte+St
• Determined Eligible
"
.
East➢r • M'-4dr-.nvn!„
n
■ DOE, Gone
eat-t's
5 .:: y: �;y [..o-:
• SLard DGE
-____ ____
- _ _
__. _8�
tibs� rl •�'
A1P
x �•�.i ;fib _ "!!fr Rrt
R<!.
Y4 ve
♦ SLand DOE, Gore.
f
�i,�_
- ___r--=-"lq
r
n9. e'.• •.p. n��` �• L.
* DGEHD Center Paint
rt
-
—
* SLUOLHD i_enter Point
wall p
g
1 ' - -
u G57383 4Vrig1',is Chay„el _
v •
r'
_
4YA—'
-- ArvlE . h-2017 _
__ _ _ _ LYYl 03F GxN gh�{�`..h pe�
+3nkl,,,
gtv¢
I �
Fianr'rn:hare
- FME , n .,ht di _nDl A,,
Gc q�g McAdenville
��
-
snarvi.n cen�'
- -- --_`_` - _ • ¢ryb,gp
Historic Dilin�-._DD5
P
c•
A
`- zt `..
- - J • I
�v
i 1
pR
Gi u
D
P
r P¢�4r•i
- a R'„.p-' 1p Or
..
-
,N
Goo.nl
GY
r
Ot
k
Irn�y. -
SI
$
Mvnreq,�
E
93 Gtt'q
r' _ _Z Mr.l.Dil
--
J
P
-
F n
L
Gardner $,��
Nr✓•.
West.
Park f'ao rP.nwelt`' - n tllrn
I
4 a`
goo
Cramerton
ShQMi fiacr
{
'�
_ ,C
.. r -- -

APPENDIX I
NC Clearinghouse Correspondence

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Roy Cooper
GOVERNOR
September 1, 2020
Chris Tinklenberg
NorthPoint Development, LLC
c/o Kimley Horn
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28202-
Machelle Sanders
Secretary
Re: SCH File 9 21-E-0000-0691 Proposed project is for the construction of 8 to 15 distribution
center warehouses, ranging from 251,000 square feet to 1,419,000 square feet over 380 acres
of undeveloped forest land. Associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater
management facilities are also proposed as a part of t
Dear Chris Tinklenberg:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. I I3A-10, when a state
agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter
for your consideration are comments made by the agencies in the review of this document.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Crystal Best
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION Fax: [phone] WEST JONES STREET
1301 MAIL SERVICE CENTER COURIER: #51-01-00 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1301 Email: [e-mail]
Wehsite: www.ncadmin.nc.gov

Control No.: 21-E-0000-0691
County.: GASTON
LYN HARDISON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Project Information
Date Received: 7/31/2020
Agency Response: 8/31/2020
Review Closed: 8/31/2020
Type: National Environmental Policy Act ping
Applicant: NorthPoint Development, LLC
Project Desc.: Proposed project is for the construction of 8 to 15 distribution center warehouses, ranging
from 251,000 square feet to 1,419,000 square feet over 380 acres of undeveloped forest land.
Associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater management facilities are also
proposed as a part of this development.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
❑No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑✓ Documents Attached
Reviewed By: LYN HARDISON Date: 8/27/2020

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
JAMIE RAGAN
Director
MEMORANDUM
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
To: Crystal Best
State Clearinghouse Coordinator
NC Department of Administration
From: Lyn Hardison
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
Environmental Assistance and Project Review Coordinator
Washington Regional Office
RE: 21-0691
Scoping - Proposed project is for the construction of 8 to 15
distribution center warehouses, ranging from 251,000 square feet
to 1,419,000 square feet over 380 acres of undeveloped forest
land. Associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater
management facilities are also proposed as a part of this
development.
Gaston County
Date: August 26, 2020
The Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed the proposal for the referenced
project. Based on the information provided, several of our agencies have identified permits that
may be required and offered some valuable guidance to help minimize impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources in and around the project area. The comments are attached for the
applicant's review.
The Department agencies will continue to be available to assist the applicant through any
environmental review or permitting processes.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
kcumi. v�x:N D E Q
aw++mMn a r ow�r�
North Carolina Department of Envi ronme7 tai Quality I Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
217 West Jones Street 1 1639 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1639
87T623.6748

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lyn Hardison, Environmental Assistance and SEPA Coordinator
NCDEQ Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services
FROM: Olivia Munzer, Western Piedmont Coordinator K2_��
Habitat Conservation
DATE: 12 August 2020
SUBJECT: Scoping for the NorthPoint Development in Gastonia and Lowell, Gaston County, North
Carolina. DEQ Project No. 21-0691.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
documents. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act, North Carolina (N.C.) Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC
25), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
On behalf of NorthPoint Development, LLC, Kimley Horn have requested scoping for the preparation of
an environmental document for NorthPoint Development project located between West 1st Street and
Interstate 85 in Lowell and Gastonia, Gaston County, North Carolina. The approximately 380-acre site
would be developed to provide warehousing and supply -chain distribution space to service the Charlotte
Metropolitan Statistical Care and southeastern U.S. The project would include 4,675,000 square feet of
distribution center, access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater management facilities.
Unnamed tributaries to Duharts Creek in the Catawba River basin flow through the site. We have known
records of federal and state endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii); federal
candidate and state threatened Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum); state threated bigleaf
magnolia (Magnolia macrophylla); significantly rare glade milkvine (Matelea decipiens) and Heller's
rabbit -tobacco (Pseudognaphalium helleri) near the site. The lack of records from the site does not imply
or confirm the absence of federal or state -listed species. An on -site survey is the only means to determine
if the proposed project may impact federal or state rare, threatened, or endangered species.
If an environmental document is prepared, it should include a detailed assessment of existing natural
resources within the project area and should discuss the potential of mitigating impacts to wetlands,
waters, and high -quality upland habitat. We encourage the applicant to consult the Department of
Environmental Quality's Guidance for Preparing SEPA Documents and Addressing Secondary and
Cumulative Impacts in preparing the environmental document. This document is available at
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/permits-regulations/seya. To facilitate our review of proposed project impacts on
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources, we request the following information is included in the
environmental document. Although some of the information, requests and comments may not be
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

12 August 2020 Page 2
NorthPoint Development
DEQ Project No. 21-0691
applicable to this project, these should facilitate preparation of an environmental document that addresses
impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Include descriptions of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources within the project area, and a
listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered or special concern species. A
listing of designated species can be found on the N.C. Natural Heritage Program's website at
http://www.ncnhp.org. Any protected species surveys should be conducted by biologists with
both state and federal endangered species permits.
2. The project footprint should be surveyed for wetlands and streams to ensure there are no impacts
to surface waters. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas and streams aid in flood
control and water quality protection. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permits and
NCDWR Section 401 Certifications are required for any impacts to jurisdictional streams or
wetlands. Include descriptions of any streams or wetlands affected by the project.
3. Define the service area for the project, including any ETJs (extra -territorial jurisdiction), and
provide a map of the service area.
4. Provide a description of project activities that will occur within wetlands and streams, such as fill
or channel alteration. The amount of impacts by alternative project designs should be listed.
Provide a description and a cover type map showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted
by the project.
6. Discuss the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands and uplands).
7. Discuss any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to mitigate
unavoidable habitat losses.
8. Discuss the cumulative impacts of secondary development facilitated by the proposed project.
Such discussion should weigh the economic benefits of such growth against the costs of
associated environmental impact.
(a) Include specific measures (e.g., local ordinances) that will be used to address stormwater and
sedimentation at the source. Include specific requirements for both residential and industrial
developments and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be required.
(b) Include specific measures (e.g., local ordinances) that will be used to protect stream
corridors, riparian habitat, and a minimum of the 100-year floodplain from filling and
development. Commitments by the project sponsors to protect area streams with riparian buffers
through purchase or conservation easement are of particular interest.
At this time, the information provided is not sufficient for our staff to make definitive recommendations
or conclusions concerning this project. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. Please contact me at [phone] or olivia.munzerkncwildlife.ora if there are any questions
about these comments.

State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Regional Office: Mnnrp,;y'll
Project Number: 21-0691 Due Date: 8/27/2020
County: Gaston
After review of this project it has been determined that the DEQ permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this
project to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the
reverse of the form. All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Time
(statutory time
limit
Permit to construct & operate wastewater
Application 90 days before begins construction or award of
❑
treatment facilities, non-standard sewer system
construction contracts. On -site inspection may be required. Post-
30 days
extensions &sewer systems that do not
application technical conference usual.
(90 days)
discharge into state surface waters.
Permit to construct & operate, sewer
extensions involving gravity sewers, pump
Fast -Track Permitting program consists of the submittal of an
30 days
®
stations and force mains discharging into a
application and an engineer's certification that the project meets all
(N/A)
sewer collection
applicable State rules and Division Minimum Design Criteria.
system
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water
Application 180 days before begins activity. On -site inspection. Pre -
and/or permit to operate and construct
application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct
90-120 days
wastewater facilities discharging into state
wastewater treatment facility -granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days
(N/A)
surface waters.
after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit -whichever is later.
Water Use Permit
Pre -application technical conference usually necessary.
30 days
(N/A)
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
❑
Well Construction Permit
installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not
7 days
owned by the applicant, and for a large capacity (>100,000 gallons per
(15 days)
)
day) water supply well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
Dredge and Fill Permit
owner. On -site inspection. Pre -application conference usual. Filling may
55 days
require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and
(90 days)
Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct &operate Air Pollution
Application must be submitted and permit received prior to
Abatement facilities and/or Emission Sources as
construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required
90 days
per 15 A NCAC (2Q.0100 thru 2Q.0300)
in an area without local zoning, then there are additional
requirements and timelines (2Q.0113).
Any open burning associated with subject
60 days
proposal must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC
N/A
(90 days)
2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures
Please Note -The Health Hazards Control Unit (HHCU) of the N.C.
containing asbestos material must be in
Department of Health and Human Services, must be notified of plans to
❑compliance
with 15 A NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1)
demolish a building, including residences for commercial or industrial
60 days
which requires notification and removal prior to
expansion, even if no asbestos is present in the building.
(90 days)
demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-707-5950
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres are to be disturbed. Plan must be filed with and approved
20 days
®
by applicable Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 days before beginning activity. A NPDES Construction
(30 days)
Stormwater permit (NCG010000) is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of $65
for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees.
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular
(30 days)
attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable
Stormwater conveyances and outlets.
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with Gaston County Local Government's approved
Based on Local
®
program. Particular attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping
Program
devices as well as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets.
❑Compliance
with 15A NCAC 2H .0126 - NPDES Stormwater Program which regulates three types of activities: Industrial,
30-60 days
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System & Construction activities that disturb >_1 acre.
(90 days)
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 -State Stormwater Permitting Programs regulate site development and post-
45 days
171
construction stormwater runoff control. Areas subject to these permit programs include all 20 coastal counties, and
(90 days)
various other counties and watersheds throughout the state.
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 1 of 4
April 23, 2020/lbh

State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Regional Office: Mooresville
Project Number: 21-0691 Due Date: R/fi n?n
County: Gaston
Normal Process
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Time
(statutory time
limit
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DEQ Bond amount
❑
Mining Permit
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Affected
30 days
area greater than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond
(60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect
construction, and certify construction is according to DEQ approved
Dam Safety Permit
plans. May also require a permit under mosquito control program. And
30 days
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary
(60 days)
to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must
accompany the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
❑
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
90-120 daysN
A
File surety bond of $5,000 with DEQ running to State of NC conditional
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be
10 days
N/A
plugged according to DEQ rules and regulations.
❑
Geophysical Exploration Permit
Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit.
10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form.
N/A
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
15-20 days
State Lakes Construction Permit
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian
N/A
property
Compliance with the T15A 02H .0500 Certifications are required
60 days
®
401 Water Quality Certification
whenever construction or operation of facilities will result in a
(130 days)
discharge into navigable water as described in 33 CFR part 323.
Compliance with Catawba, Goose Creek, Jordan Lake, Randleman, Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules is required.
❑
Buffer requirements: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-
branch/401-wetlands-buffer-perm its/401-riparian-buffer-protection-program
Nutrient Offset: Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River basins, and in the
Jordan and Falls Lake watersheds, as part of the nutrient -management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset
information:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/d ivisions/water-resou rces/pIan n ing/nonpoint-sou rce-manage ment/nutrient-offset-information
❑
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 $475.00 fee must accompany application
75 days
150 days)
❑
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$100.00 fee must accompany application
22 days
25 days)
®
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
®Notification
of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during
any excavation operation.
Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion, or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the
Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction
®
as per 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq., Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
30 days
North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring
requirements. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to
®
the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
30 days
1634. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion, or alteration of the Two Rivers water system must be approved
through the Two Rivers delegated plan approval authority. Please contact them at 704-866-6823 for further information.
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 2 of 4
April 23, 2020/lbh

State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Regional Office: Mooresville
Project Number: 21-0691 Due Date: 8 27 2020
County: Gaston
Other Comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to comment authority)
Division
Initials
No
Comments
Date
comment
Review
DAQ
AFC
❑
See checked items. Any engines installed should comply with NESHAP 4Z
8/4/2020
requirements
DWR-WQROS
AHP
❑
Streams and wetlands were identified in the scoping document that are
8/5/2020
(Aquifer & Surface)
&
likely UTs to Duharts Creek, depending on the nature of the development
proposed, if stream or wetland impacts are planned, then a 401 certificate
would be necessary (box checked). Any development that may need
wastewater handling or treatment would likely need a sewer extension
permit (box checked) or potentially the less likely individual NPDES or Non -
Discharge permit (box not checked). Any wells that may be in the way of
the development should be properly abandoned by a NCCWC (box
checked). &
DWR-PWS
JHW
❑
See above items
8/3/2020
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
ZSK
❑
Erosion and sediment control permit required alongwith NPDES permit.
8/3/2020
DWM — UST
RHT
❑
RE: Project Review Form: 21-0691
8/17/2020
1 have read through the scoping document for the proposed project. The
following comments are pertinent to my review:
1. The Mooresville Regional Office (MRO) UST Section recommends
removal of any abandoned or out -of -use petroleum USTs or petroleum
above ground storage tanks (ASTs) within the project area. The UST Section
should be contacted regarding use of any proposed or on -site petroleum
USTs or ASTs. We may be reached at 704-663-1699.
2. Any petroleum spills must be contained, and the area of impact
must be properly restored. Petroleum spills of significant quantity must be
reported to the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural
Resources — Division of Waste Management Underground Storage Tank
Section in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-1699.
3. Any soils excavated during demolition or construction that show
evidence of petroleum contamination, such as stained soil, odors, or free
product must be reported immediately to the local Fire Marshall to
determine whether explosion or inhalation hazards exist. Also, notify the
UST Section of the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-1699. Petroleum
contaminated soils must be handled in accordance with all applicable
regulations.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
me at [e-mail] or by phone at 704-235-2167.
Other Comments
❑
/ /
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office ❑ Fayetteville Regional Office ® Mooresville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway 225 Green Street, Suite 714, 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301,
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211 Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043 Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone:[phone] Phone:[phone] Phone:[phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 3 of 4
April 23, 2020/lbh

State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
❑ Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall,
Washington, NC 27889
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300,
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
❑ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.,
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form
April 23, 2020/lbh
Page 4 of 4

ROY COOPEk
Vd-V lr#
MICHAEL S. REGAIN
1p'L Rhwv
MICHAEL SCOTT
1 mcfar
Date: August 20, 2020
ra,) xT-i C iPO,v-,n
9hV fOrrihrrtraO qug r�'
To: Michael Scott, Director
Division of Waste Management
Through: Janet Macdonald
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch — Special Projects Unit
From: Bonnie S. Ware
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
Subject: NEPA Project #21-0691, NorthPoint Development, LLC, Gaston County, North Carolina
The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under its jurisdiction to the NorthPoint
Development, LLC project. Proposed project is for the construction of 8 to 15 distribution center warehouses,
ranging from 251,000 square feet to 1,419,000 square feet over 380 acres of undeveloped forest land.
Associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater management facilities are also proposed as a part
of this development.
Eight (8) sites were identified within one mile of the project as shown on the attached report. The
Superfund Section recommends that site files be reviewed to ensure that appropriate precautions are
incorporated into any construction activities that encounter potentially contaminated soil or groundwater.
Superfund Section files can be viewed at: http://deg.nc.gov/waste-management-laserfiche.
Please contact Janet Macdonald at 919.707.8349 if you have any questions.
0 �-Dft E Q i)!�
North"rokniiDtpa►iimmofl-rn%iniunent99Qua14Y I lltv140p-al Y**%*%U wffm one
1I,%*Jt1CMira5uxq 11646MOR1itt+lteCMtW - RidO.411 hUMSCAtOonaY-y,4iWb

8/20/2020
SEPA/NEPA Review Report
Area of Interest (AOI) Information
Area: 4,787.48 acres
Aug 20 2020 13:19:29 Eastern Daylight Time
W _
F
1;as,112
NC Srownfleids Locatidn View
ri
No Further Interest • DSCP.Cenifted - Copp
a d 3B 015 f aml
Recorded
•
Federal Remedlat on Branch • Inactive Hazardous Sites
a 0.5 1 2 Wn
Active Eligible
•
Pre Regulatory Landfill Sites I A Parcels (Potygons) - Parcels
s-1W. °°'N.
G.NP5, 1-1°`"�-1np1e11.P�I�Q
USSS.. FM), NPS, tRGpN, 6eoBpse. IGN, Ihdgars NLd
54 ', Fitt jwR nrFnEari Cti.e (F4ip l(d*gl. itS
OVenSbetlMBpcunbnNm�; ag9e GISUSe'Cannierty
1/2

8/20/2020
21-0691 Gaston County
Summary
Name
Count
Area(acres)
Length(mi)
Certified DSCA Sites
Federal Remediation Branch Sites
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
Inactive Hazardous Sites
3
N/A
N/A
Pre -Regulatory Landfill Sites
1
N/A
N/A
Brownfields Program Sites
4
N/A
N/A
Inactive Hazardous Sites
#
EPAID
SITENAME
Count
1
NCD980559637
BEAUNIT CORP./DYING & FINISHING
1
2
NCN000409889
CERTIFIED PLATING
1
3
NONCD0001751
GASTON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1
Pre -Regulatory Landfill Sites
EPAID SITENAME Count
NONCD0000323 Lowell Refuse Dump 1
Brownfields Program Sites
#
BF ID
1705613036
2101217036
905705036
BF Name
Count
1
Yorkshire Americas II
1
2
Spring Ford Knit Co
1
3
Noroap Plant
1
4
1003006036
Yorkshire Americas Plant
1
2/2

Ploy COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
MICHAEL SCOTT
Airecror
DATE:
TO
FROM
RE:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quollty
August 21, 2020
Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley
Deb Aja, Western District Supervisor - Solid Waste Section
NEPA Project 21-0691, Gaston County, N.C.
North Point Development, LLC - Distribution Center Warehouses
The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the environmental scoping request for North Point
Development, LLC project for the construction of 8 to 15 distribution center warehouses, ranging
from 251,000 square feet to 1,419,000 square feet over 380 acres of undeveloped forest land in
Gastonia and Lowell, Gaston County, North Carolina. A Land Clearing and Inert Debris Landfill,
N0559, is located off -property in the vicinity of the project at 821 Log Cabin Drive in Gastonia.
The review has been completed and has found no adverse impact on the surrounding community
and likewise knows of no situations in the community, which would affect this project from a solid
waste perspective.
During the project, every feasible effort should be made to minimize the generation of waste,
to recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and
materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this
project that cannot be beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste
management facility approved to manage the respective waste type. The Section strongly
recommends that any contractors are required to provide proof of proper disposal for all
waste generated as part of the project. A list of permitted solid waste management facilities is
available on the Solid Waste Section portal site at: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-
management/waste-management-rules-data/solid-waste-management-annual-reports/solid-
waste-perm fitted-faci I ity-I ist
Please contact Kim Sue, Environmental Senior Specialist, for any other questions regarding solid
waste management for this project. Ms. Sue may be reached at [phone] or by email at
[e-mail].
Ec: Jason Watkins, Field Operations Branch Head
Kim Sue, Environmental Senior Specialist
N 1�NAI�
oeaa.o- w m t moimiei� ouai� �S
North Carolina Department of EnVironmentai Quality I Divlsionof Waste Management
Asheville Regional Office 1 2090 U.S. Hlghway 70 1 Swannanea. North Carolina 28778
828.296ASOO

Control No.: 21-E-0000-0691
County.: GASTON
DEVONBORGARDT
Clearinghouse Reviewer
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL
RESOURCE
Project Information
Date Received: 7/31/2020
Agency Response: 8/31/2020
Review Closed: 8/31/2020
Type: National Environmental Policy Act ping
Applicant: NorthPoint Development, LLC
Project Desc.: Proposed project is for the construction of 8 to 15 distribution center warehouses, ranging
from 251,000 square feet to 1,419,000 square feet over 380 acres of undeveloped forest land.
Associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater management facilities are also
proposed as a part of this development.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
❑No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑Documents Attached
Reviewed By: DEVON BORGARDT Date: 8/20/2020

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
June 5, 2020
Addie Lasitter
Kinlley-Horn
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 282020
Addie. LasitterUkimley-horn. com
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Develop industrial space and associated infrastructure, between Lowell Road and Interstate 85,
Gastonia, Gaston County, ER 20-0882
Dear Ms. Lasitter:
Thank you for your email of April 3, 2020, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have reviewed your
submittal and offer the following comments. We apologize for the delay in our response and any inconvenience
it may have caused.
This project will adversely affect the National Register -eligible Caleb John Lineberger House (GS0327). We
advise that project management determine if federal permitting, funding, or approval will be required, as
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires the resolution of adverse effects to historic
properties.
As always, we encourage the applicant to avoid the adverse effect and if that cannot be accomplished then to
minimize or mitigate. We would be happy to facilitate contact between the applicant and historic preservation
groups that may be interested in the relocation of the house.
There is one previously recorded archaeological site (31GS376) within the project area. It consists of the
remains of an early twentieth-century domestic structure. When the site was documented in 2016, further
archaeological investigations were recommended to assess whether the site is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One architectural resource, the Caleb John Lineberger House (GS0327), is
also located within the project area. This house was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion
B for its association with Gaston County textile industry pioneer, Caleb John Lineberger, and under Criterion C
for Architecture. Archaeological investigations were not conducted round the house.
We recommend that prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activities within the project area that
archaeological site 31GS376 be relocated and assessed for listing in the NRHP. We also recommend that the
area surrounding the Caleb John Lineberger House by investigated for archaeological remains that may
contribute to the resource's NRHP eligibility. Please note that our office requests consultation with the Office
of State Archaeology Review Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to archaeological
field investigations.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699A617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

This work should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior
professional qualification standards. A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an
interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at httgs://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-
consultant-list. The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct
the recommended survey.
One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as a digital copy
(PDF) of the North Carolina Site Form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) through this office, for review and comment as soon as they are available and in advance
of any construction or ground disturbance activities. OSA's Archaeological Standards and Guidelines for Background
Research, FieldMethodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation can be found online at: httgs://files.nc.gov/dncr-
arch/OSA Guidelines Dec2017.12df.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above -
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
L.WRamona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

Control No.: 21-E-0000-0691
County.: GASTON
JOSEPH HUDYNCIA
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
Project Information
Date Received: 7/31/2020
Agency Response: 8/31/2020
Review Closed: 8/31/2020
Type: National Environmental Policy Act ping
Applicant: NorthPoint Development, LLC
Project Desc.: Proposed project is for the construction of 8 to 15 distribution center warehouses, ranging
from 251,000 square feet to 1,419,000 square feet over 380 acres of undeveloped forest land.
Associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater management facilities are also
proposed as a part of this development.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
❑� No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑Documents Attached
Reviewed By: JOSEPH HUDYNCIA Date: 8/3/2020

Control No.: 21-E-0000-0691
County.: GASTON
JINTAO WEN
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Project Information
Date Received: 7/31/2020
Agency Response: 8/31/2020
Review Closed: 8/31/2020
Type: National Environmental Policy Act ping
Applicant: NorthPoint Development, LLC
Project Desc.: Proposed project is for the construction of 8 to 15 distribution center warehouses, ranging
from 251,000 square feet to 1,419,000 square feet over 380 acres of undeveloped forest land.
Associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater management facilities are also
proposed as a part of this development.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
❑No Comment ❑✓ Comments Below ❑Documents Attached
From the document provided it appears the proposed project encroaches into Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA);
therefore, a Floodplain Development Permit issued by City of Gastonia will be required. Please coordinate with the City's
Floodplain Administrator for permitting.
Any work within the regulatory floodway or Non -Encroachment Area will require a hydraulic analysis to determine the
effects on flood levels from the proposed development. Any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge will
require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to construction. Otherwise, a "No -Rise" certification will be
required.
Reviewed By: JINTAO WEN Date: 8/26/2020

Control No.: 21-E-0000-0691
County.: GASTON
JEANNE STONE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Information
Date Received: 7/31/2020
Agency Response: 8/31/2020
Review Closed: 8/31/2020
Type: National Environmental Policy Act ping
Applicant: NorthPoint Development, LLC
Project Desc.: Proposed project is for the construction of 8 to 15 distribution center warehouses, ranging
from 251,000 square feet to 1,419,000 square feet over 380 acres of undeveloped forest land.
Associated access roads, parking, utilities, and stormwater management facilities are also
proposed as a part of this development.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
❑� No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑Documents Attached
Reviewed By: J EAN N E STONE Date: 8/27/2020