20200941 Ver 2_ePCN Application_20210120

5�\!EERII&'
m'AW
*1833N1`��''�
January 19, 2021
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations
ATTN: Alan Johnson, Senior Environmental Specialist
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
CC: United States Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
ATTN: Bryan Roden -Reynolds, PWS, Regulatory Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJECT: Albemarle Corporate Center, Re -Submittal of Section 404/401 Application Request,
Version 2.0
REFERENCE: Albemarle Corporate Center, Section 404/401 Pre -Construction Notification, Submitted
July 21, 2020; Withdrawn December 7 , 2020 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]
Action ID No. SAW-2018-00566; N.C. Division of Water Resources [NCDWR] Project
No. DWR 20-0941)
Albemarle Corporate Center, Resubmittal of Section 404/401 Pre -Construction
Notification, Submitted December 11, 2020 (SAW-2018-00566; NCDWR Project No.
DWR 20-0941, V2) (Officially submitted to USACE only, NCDWR copied on submittal)
Albemarle Corporate Center, NCDWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form, submitted
December 11, 2020.
Mr. Johnson:
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks), as a sub -consultant to Chambers Engineering, PA (Chambers)
is the authorized agent for the Albemarle Corporate Center, which is a proposed business center being
developed by the City of Albemarle (City), North Carolina. Three Oaks submitted a Section 404/401 Pre -
Construction Notification (PCN) to USACE and NCDWR on behalf of the City on July 21, 2020. On
November 9, 2020, Mr. Roden -Reynolds requested via email that we re -submit a PCN with all of the
additional/updated information included so that it could be reviewed all at once. You had followed via email
on December 2, 2020 that you would like us to request a withdrawal of the original PCN request prior to
submitting the updated PCN request (to which Mr. Roden -Reynolds also agreed to via email). An official
request to withdraw Version 1.0 of the application was submitted to agencies on December 7, 2020.
Three Oaks Engineering ;° threeoaksengineering.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —

------ -- ----------------------------- -------- ------ 0
The re -submitted application request was submitted to Mr. Roden -Reynolds on December 11, 2020 via
email and the DODSafe file transfer website; NCDWR was carbon copied on the submittal. A NCDWR
Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form was also submitted to NCDWR on December 11, 2020. Three Oaks/the
City has waited the minimum required 30 days after submittal of the Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form and
are hereby re -submitting this application request to NCDWR for review.
This request includes all items that have been requested by both agencies during the application review
process. Below is a summary of the actions made to update the application package based on agency
comments and requests. In response to our re -submittal to USACE on December 11, 2020, Mr. Roden -
Reynolds also requested additional items during his application review process; these items and our
subsequent actions are also below (Three Oaks/Chambers subsequent actions/responses are in bolded italics
following the comment/request):
USACE
In an email dated August 3, 2020, Mr. Roden -Reynolds provided the following comments in response
to the application submittal on July 21, 2020:
o Complete the ORM Aquatic Resources Upload Spreadsheet (see attached excel spreadsheet) for
all aquatic resources located within the project area.
The completed ORMAquatic Resources Upload Spreadsheet was included with the December
11, 2020 re -submittal to USACE. This was also provided by Three Oaks via email on October
2, 2020.
o The stream restoration plan presented in the PCN lacks specific detail and is insufficient to
analyze under Nationwide Permit 27. Therefore, a more formal stream restoration plan is needed
and should include but not limited to:
■ Restoration goals;
■ Success criteria;
■ Pre/post longitudinal cross -
sectional drawings;
■ Channel stabilization structure
schematics (may also include
some general plan to address
unstable areas);
■ Grading plan;
■ Planting plan;
■ Monitoring plan;
■ Long-term protection
methodology for restored
reach (e.g., easement, deed
restriction);
■ etc.
A comprehensive Preliminary Stream and Riparian Area Restoration Plan is provided with
this re -submittal, with the anticipation that the plan will be finalized after review by USACE
and NCDWR and any required field visits to the site with agencies. This was also provided by
Three Oaks via email on October 2, 2020 but has been updated in this submittal to address
subsequent NCDWR comments.
o There may be some merit in letting the stream find its own path once the ponds are drained and
impounding structures are removed; however, The Corps believes that pulling the structures and
walking away from the site to let nature take its course is completely reasonable.
This comment is addressed in the included Preliminary Stream and Riparian Area
Restoration Plan.
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

--- -- --------- ------------ --- 0
o These ponds likely have accreted sediment and the PCN lacks any information about this
potential. Therefore, a plan needs to be presented as to how sediment in the ponds will be dealt
with.
A Pond Drainage Plan has been developed and is included with this re -submittal. This was
also provided by Three Oaks via email on October 2, 2020 but has been updated in this
submittal to address subsequent NCDWR comments.
In addition to the USACE comments above, Three Oaks had not provided a Schweinitz's sunflower survey
report in the original application, which is required as part of the Section 404 review process. That report
is included in this re -submittal and was also provided by Three Oaks via email on October 2, 2020.
USACE requests/comments associated with the December 11, 2020 resubmittal to USACE
• In an email dated December 17, 2020, Mr. Roden -Reynolds provided the following requests/comments
regarding the permit application re -submittal to USACE:
o The PCN states "10 feet of each permanent impact site consists of a foot countersunk riprap pad
that will be permanent but will be flush with the stream bed and will not result in a loss of water."
However, Table 3 (Stream Impacts) did not specifically list out the impacts associated with the
riprap pads. So please clarify the permanent stream impacts which result in the loss of waters
(233 linear feet??) versus the permanent impacts from a dissipator pads (30 linear feet ??).
The stream impacts table in the PCN, as well as the Environmental Impact package summary
sheet, have been updated to clarify the stream impacts. A total of 233 linear feet of impact will
result in a permanent loss of waters and an additional 30 feet will be countersunk rip rap and
will not result in a loss of waters. This information was provided to USACE on January 17,
2021, along with their other requested items (see below).
o The PCN states "we would like to use the restoration of this site (i.e., the drained pond) to offset
any permanent stream and wetland impacts with the project." The Corps will consider the stream
re-establishment as onsite mitigation for the 1.13 acres of open water impacts; however,
compensatory mitigation will still be considered for the 233-263 linear feet of permanent stream
impacts.
This comment is addressed in the item below.
o The PCN lacked a signed Compensatory Mitigation Acceptance Letter from NCDMS for the
permanent stream impacts. Therefore, please include a signed Compensatory Mitigation
Acceptance Letter.
A compensatory mitigation acceptance letter from NCDMS is included and was provided to
USACE on January 17, 2021.
o In the PCN Section D (2)(h) it states "all wetland impacts would not fit on the table above.
Please see the attached wetland impact table for by -site impact information." The Corps did not
see the wetland impact table that was called out in that section. Please provide the wetland
impact table that corresponds with Section D(2) Wetland Impacts.
The wetland table was included in the December 11, 2020 resubmittal. However, it was
resubmitted to USACE via email on January 4, 2021 and again on January 19, 2021.
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

o The PCN lacked methodology such as NCSAM for the streams which would be permanently
impacts and potentially require mitigation. Without this understanding of current conditions, the
Corps will assume the impacted stream features as high quality and determine a compensatory
mitigation ratio based on that assumption. Therefore, please provide NCSAM for Streams SE,
SJ, and SL.
NCSAM forms have been completed for the three impacted streams and were provided to
USACE on January 17, 2021. Copies have also been provided to NCDWR.
o In the PCN Section 5(b) you stated you have checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered
Species Act impacts. The PCN did not contain any correspondence between the applicant and
USFWS. Therefore, can you provide any correspondence between the applicant and USFWS
and any recommendations/concerns they may have. In addition, I have reviewed the Natural
Heritage Database (see attached PDF) and determined there are 2 known populations of
Schweinitz's sunflower located within 2 miles of the project (approximately 1 mile south of the
project area and approximately 2 miles east of the project area). Based on these known
occurrences, the Corps has initiated consultation with the USFWS. The project area consists of
transitional areas such as forest edge/agricultural field edges which is suitable habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower. Based on known occurrences of species within 2 miles and potential
suitable habitat onsite; have you conducted a targeted survey of suitable habitat during the
optimal survey window (August 15 through October). The survey will likely be a
recommendation from the USFWS during Section 7 consultation and they will likely not be able
to make a determination until they receive those survey results. Which means the Corps will not
be able to complete Section 7 consultation with USFWS until they are able to make a
determination and the Corps would not be able to issue a permit until Section 7 consultation is
complete.
The Schweinitz's sunflower survey report was included in the December 11, 2020 resubmittal.
However, it was resubmitted to USACE via email on January 4, 2021.
►hC��.f7
• In an email dated August 10, 2020, Mr. Johnson provided the following comments in response to the
application submittal on July 21, 2020:
o The "owners" name was not printed on the agent authorization form. Please provide.
An updated Agent Authorization form is provided with this re -submittal. This was also
provided by Three Oaks via email on August 26, 2020.
o Only a road(s) is shown for the corporate center. Is there no proposed site diagram for this
project? Future development may require or request impacts for additional streams. That may
could be avoided if understanding the needs.
A Site Concept Plan is included in this re -submittal. This was also provided by Three Oaks
via email on August 26, 2020.
o Also, storm water management will be required for the site and any future connections to the
sewer line and must be reviewed and approved by DWR for any future development in the park
and sewer line.
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

0
The area where the project is located is not a State managed Phase H Stormwater area and
Albemarle does not currently have any local stormwater standards. However, the project will
follow the low -density requirements for all proposed (the roadway) and future development.
Additionally, the project will follow the Grading and Erosion Control Plan for construction
of the roadway, which has been approved by NCDEQ, that is included in this re -submittal.
Initially responded to question via email August 26, 2020 but have since revised language in
PCN to clarify.
o It seems mitigation is actually the draining of the pond. Are any measures being taken to ensure
to protect the channel from pond degrading (loss of sediment)?
Both a Preliminary Stream and Riparian Area Restoration Plan and Pond Drainage Plan are
included in this re -submittal, which address this comment. Initially responded to questions
via email August 26, 2020 and provided plans via forwarded email on October 2, 2020;
however, plans have been updated in this submittal to address subsequentNCDWR comments.
• In a series of emails dated September 1, 2020, Mr. Johnson provided the following comments as a
follow-up to Three Oaks' August 26, 2020 response to Mr. Johnson's August 10, 2020 email:
o Regarding the stormwater. A condition of the 401 is stormwater if it meets the state stormwater
requirements and/or is high density. I would assume a corporate center would meet those
conditions and thus a Stormwater plan is required.
hgps://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Qualily/Surface%2OWater%2OProtection/4O l/Certs%20a
__ ln/ nnT___.___-_Inn 1 � _ __ Annn_/rrAl�n ._ 1C
See section 1, 5 (a) & (b)
Does this site meet SEPA requirements?
The area where the project is located is not a State managed Phase H Stormwater area and
Albemarle does not have any local stormwater standards. However, the project will follow the
low -density requirements for all proposed (the roadway) and future development.
Additionally, the project will follow the Grading and Erosion Control Plan for construction
of the roadway, which has been approved by NCDEQ, that is included in this re -submittal.
o Below is a diagram avoiding stream impacts (and an alternate blue route). Please provide a
reason why such a road cannot work. Given there is no hard plan, this should work. Also, if the
pond is to be drained, this would count as a stream impact. Pushing stream impacts to 341 If.
(The state permits permanent impact. Riprap in the channel is a permanent impact.
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

0
A route justification has previously been provided to NCDWR via email on October 2, 2020
in response to this email comment and is included in the re -submittal package. The included
permit drawings address the comments regarding riprap in the channel and impacts have
been increased by 10 feet at each of the culvert sites to account for this impact. These were
also provided via email on October 2, 2020 but have been updated to address subsequent
NCDWR comments.
o What measures are to betaken to connect the pond to the stream channel once it is drained (often
times the elevation inside the pond and outside the toe of slope (at the breach) has to be
adjusted/corrected. What measures are there to prevent sediment transport in the pond into the
stream is being utilized).
Both a Preliminary Stream and Riparian Area Restoration Plan and Pond Drainage Plan are
included in this re -submittal, which address this comment. These were also provided via a
forwarded email on October 2, 2020 but have been updated in this submittal to address
subsequent NCDWR comments.
o This site is endowed with numerous streams and the large footprints proposed can have a
devastating impact on small streams from the volume and velocity of runoff from such facilities
(previous email). Also, the sewer line opens up the previously undeveloped area. Any future
sites that connect to the line, would need to meet the Stormwater requirements associated
should/when the 401 is issued.
Three Oaks and Chambers concur with this statement. The project will follow the low -density
requirements for all proposed (the roadway) and future development. Additionally, the project
will follow the Grading and Erosion Control Plan for construction of the roadway, which has
been approved by NCDEQ, that is included in this re -submittal.
o Culverts should be offset, not installed parallel. A base flow culvert and a stormflow culvert.
The channel dimension/width must be maintained at culvert inlet and outlet. Culvert must be
buried 20% of culvert width/diameter not to exceed 1 ft. For wetlands, culverts are to be
installed at grade to maintain hydrology. See attachments.
The included Permit Drawings and Roadway Plans have been revised to address these
comments. These revisions were originally submitted via email on October 2, 2020.
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

............ . 0
• In a series of emails dated October 8 and 9, 2020, Mr. Johnson provided these additional comments to
Three Oaks, which are a response/follow-up to Three Oaks' October 2, 2020 email:
o If proposed for mitigation, then a mitigation plan, stream design, monitoring period, etc. is
required. A reference reach should be obtained. Typical, seven-year monitoring is required for
plant viability and stream stability. A 50 ft. buffer is required. Typically, the mitigation
requirements are different than just "restoring" a stream.
A Preliminary Stream and Riparian Area Restoration Plan are included in this re-sublizittal.
They have been revised to address these comments.
o How is stormwater (post construction) going to be handled at the site? The application states
this is a low -density project. Does the mean the entire project is required to be low density at
build out? Stormwater can be handled on a site -by -site basis, but Albemarle with be responsible
that the company obtain an approved plan. Part of the site requirement.
The project will follow the low -density requirements for all proposed (the roadway) and future
development. Additionally, the project will follow the Grading and Erosion Control Plan for
construction of the roadway, which has been approved by NCDEQ, that is included in this re -
submittal. Future development will require similar plans and Stormwater BMPs.
o Stormwater runoff from the roadway cannot be discharged directly to the stream. How is this
to be handled. It is preferred to be discharged into a buffer area and parallel to the channel to
allow some remediation of the discharge.
Road runoff will be conveyed via vegetated swales, which will reduce velocity and remediate
discharge (please see included Grading and Erosion Control Plan). Therefore, it is not
discharged directly into the streams.
o It seems the JD submitted omitted the core of the project (the road network). I received the
"ACC additional PSA PJD".
Both the Original PJD Package and the Additional PJD Package are included in this email.
The Original PJD Package was originally provided via email on October 20, 2020.
o I located your restoration plan. A stream design will be required.
A preliminary approach to stream design is included in the Preliminary Stream and Riparian
Area Restoration Plan. It is anticipated that, after agency review and any required on -site
visits to assess site conditions, a more detailed stream design will be developed.
o Regarding the stream, keeping any accumulated sediment from discharging from the pond can
be problematic with a live stream flowing through the pond bottom. Some type of diversion
around the edge of the pond or other measure may be appropriate.
The included Pond Drainage Plan has been updated to address this comment.
• A follow-up email to Three Oaks' October 20, 2020 email providing the Original PJD Package received
a response from Mr. Johnson on the same day:
o FYI, this is the JD you supplied. The highlighted areas are missing or different from your
Environmental Impacts Sheet 90, the preliminary road network that originally submitted with
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com
---------------------------------------

----------- 0
the application. These highlights do not change impacts, etc., but could have potential impact
on buildout.
The included Permit Drawing package has been updated to address this comment.
If you have any questions or require additional information regarding the re -submitted application or any
of the information outlined above, please contact me at the number above, by cell (704-604-8358), or by
email (james.masongthreeoaksen ing eering com).
Sincerely,
James
Digitally signed by James
Mason
Mason
Date:2021.01.19
14:15:59-05'00'
James Mason, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist/Project Manager
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Additional Cc: Michael Ferris, City Manager, City of Albemarle
Dylan Blalock, EI, Chambers Engineering, PA
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

DWR
mrlslon of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
October 26, 2020 Ver 3.3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
C Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20200941
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office *
Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Albemarle Corporate Center
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
James Mason, PWS
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
1 /20/2021
Nearest Body of Water
Poplin Branch
Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
Water Classification
C, 13-17-31-1-3
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.331602-80.173307
Pre -Filing Meeting Information
ID#
DWR 20-0941
Pre -fling Meeting or Request Date*
12/11 /2020
Attach documentation of Pre -Filing Meeting Request here:*
DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf
Version#*
2
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
r $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
Version
2.0
90.61 KB
A. Processing Information C^U
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Stanly

Is this a NCDMS Project
r Yes r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
r Yes
r No
Please provide the date of the previous submission.*
12/11 /2020
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
W Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
39 - Commercial/Institutional Developments
le. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record onlyfor DWR401 Certification:
For the record onlyfor Corps Permit:
r 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
Albemarle Corporate Center DMS Acceptance.pdf
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
W Owner r Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
City of Albemarle, North Carolina
2b. Deed book and page no.:
1622; 780
2c. Responsible party:
372.68KB
*
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

N/A
2d.Address
Street Address
144 North 2nd Street
Address Line 2
PO Box190
City
State / Rmince / Pegion
Albemarle
North Carolina
Fbstal / Zip Code
Country
28001
USA
2e. Telephone Number:
2f. Fax Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
James Mason, PWS
4b. Business Name:
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
4c.Address
Street Address
324 Blackwell Street
Address Line 2
Suite 1200
City
State / Rmince / Fbgion
Durham
North Carolina
Postal / Zip Code
Country
27701
USA
4d. Telephone Number:
4e. Fax Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Agent Authorization Letter*
1 b_COA_Agent Authorization_AII Signatures_UPDATED_FLAT_Mason_Howell.pdf
206.39KB
C. Project Information and Prior Project History U
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
N/A
1c. Nearest municipality/ town
Albemarle
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
654702867363;654702776623;65470278109
4;
654702689524;654702792163;65470269808
2b. Property size:
7;654702696763
291
2c. Project Address
Street Address
24524 South Business 52
Address Line 2
City
State / Rmince / Fbgion
Albemarle
North Carolina
Postal / Zip Code
Country
28001
USA
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*

Poplin Branch
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C; 13-17-31-1-3
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Yadkin-PeeDee
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030401050401;030401040203
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The City of Albemarle proposes to develop the Albemarle Corporate Center on parcel PIN 654702867363. As
part of this project, a sewer line will need to be extended from an existing line to parcel PIN 654702867363. This
proposed gravity -fed sewer line vdll parallel Poplin Branch in its floodplain and cross an additional 5 parcels. A
proposed extension of existing Leonard Avenue to connect to the Corporate Center is also part of this project.
The existing conditions of the main project site are a mix of forested land and farm fields. Land use associated
with this project consists of agriculture, small unnamed tributaries and their associated floodplains, mixed
pine/hardwood ridges and slopes, and a small amount of commercial.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
2_ACC_EPCN_Topo_Figure_UPDATED_06042020. pdf
141.75KB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
3_ACC_NRCS_SOILS_MAP_UPDATED_06042020.pdf 121.84KB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
2.74
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
13,092
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The City of Albemarle proposes to develop a corporate center on parcel PIN 654702867363. As a result, a
gravity -fed sewer line extension from the City will need to be constructed to the site. Additionally, existing
Leonard Avenue will be extended to connect to the Corporate Center.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The Albemarle Corporate Center is a business park proposed by the City of Albemarle. As part of the proposed
project, the City proposes to develop the project site to include up to 16 separate buildings totaling up to
1,688,750 square feet of enclosed building space. As part of the site proposal, a road network will also be
constructed that connects the corporate center to US 52 Business, Leonard Avenue, and Henson Street in
Albemarle. Utilities such as gravity sewer, water, and electricity are also proposed for the site. Typical
construction equipment, such as trucks, cranes, and dozers Will be used during construction.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
4—Albemarle Corporate Center —Concept Map_August 2020_8x11.pdf
3.43MB
4a_ACC_ROute Justification.pdf
132.33KB
5_Roadway Plan & Profiles 9.28.20-compressed.pdf
4.86MB
6—Grading & Erosion Control 9.28.20-compressed.pdf
10.01MB
7—Gravity Sewer 6.22.20.pdf
14MB
8—Environmental Impacts 9.28.20-compressed.pdf
5.28MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No
Comments:
Three Oaks Engineering staff members delineated all potential WOUS on parcel PIN 654702867363
on February 22-23, 2018. A PJD site visit with David Shaeffer of the USACE was held on May 4,
2018 and these features were verified. Additional areas, including the proposed sewer line
extension and Leonard Avenue extension, have since been reviewed and additional features have
been identified. These newfeatures have not yet been verified. Both the original PJD Package and
the PJD for the additional areas are attached.
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2018-00566
r Unknown
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?

Name (if known): Nathan Howell, PWS
Agency/Consultant Company: Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made bythe Corps or DWR
May 4, 2018 (no tear sheet provided). Features outside of parcel 654702867363 were not included in this site
verification. Those outside of this parcel were recently added and have not been verified. Information/forms
related to these features are included in this permit application. If a site visit is required for these sites, please let us knowand we can schedule a site visit.
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
9_ACC_PJD_ Package _FINAL _5112018-compressed.pdf 6.34MB
10_ACC_Additional_PSA_PJD_07162020_REDUCED.pdf 4.26MB
Albemarle Corporate Center_NCSAM Forms_ SA_ SE_SL.pdf 442.38KB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes O No
7b. If yes, explain.
The proposed plan is a full build -out of the project site, with the road network being constructed first to allow
construction access, then the buildings. No additional development or expansion of the site is planned beyond
Mat is shown on the attached Concept Plan.
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
No.
[D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries r Buffers
W Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type*(?)
2c. Type of W.
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested*
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)]2area*
g. Impact
2
Other: Temporary
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WAD
Yes
Both
0.012
Impact for Sewer Line
(acres)
Installation
3
Other: Temporary
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WAE
Yes
Both
0.004
Impact for Sewer Line
(acres)
Installation
4
Other: Temporary
T
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
WAF
No
Both
0.001
Impact for Sewer Line
(acres)
Installation
4
Other: Temporary
T
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
WAG
No
Both
0.006
Impact for Sewer Line
(acres)
Installation
5
Other: Temporary
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WB
Yes
Both
0.010
Impact for Sewer Line
(acres)
Installation
6
Other: Temporary
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WK
Yes
Both
0.001
Impact for Sewer Line
(acres)
�]
Installation
11
Culvert
P
Headwater Forest
�WO
Yes
Both J0.014
(acres)
12
Other: Temporary
T
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
WAG
No
Both
0.001
Impact for Sewer Line
(acres)
Installation
12
Other: Temporary
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WAI
Yes
Both
0.007
Impact for Sewer Line
(acres)
Installation
13
Other: Temporary
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WW
Yes
Both
0.001
Impact for Sewer Line
(acres)
Installation

(Incl. Rip Rap) IIP IlHeadwater Forest
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.043
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.127
2h. Comments:
Wetland WAF impacts on sheet 4 = .0002 acre
Wetland WAG impacts on sheet 12 = .0001 acre
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.084
The temporary wetland impacts are all associated With the placement of the gravity sewer line. Existing vegetation will be removed and wetland soil Will
be temporarily displaced to install the sewer line. After installation, the wetland soil will be returned and the contour and elevation of the sites will be
restored to preepsting conditions. A native wetland seed mix will then be spread to restore hydrophytic vegetation to the sites.
3. Stream Impacts
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name*
3e. Stream Type*
Type of
3gSwidth *
3h. ImpactM
❑
�[3f.
urisdiction*
length*
S1
Excavation
Tem orar
P Y
Excavation
SO
Perennial
Both
10
30
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S2
Excavation
Tem orar
YAverage
Excavation JSA
Perennial
BothP
(feet)
(linearfeet)
S3
Excavation
Tem orar
P Y
Excavation
SD
Intermittent
Both
5
30
Average (feet)
(lirx�rfeet)
Excavation
Temporary
Excavation
SE
Perennial
Both
10
118
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S5
Crossing/Culvert
Permanent
Culvert
SE
Perennial
Both
10
73
Average (feet)
(lirearfeet)
S6
Countersunk Riprap
Permanent
Stabilization
SE
Perennial
Both
10
10
Average (feet)
(linearfee[)
S7
Excavation
Tem orar
P Y
Excavation
SE
Perennial
Both
7
30
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeel)
gg
Excavation
Temporary
Excavation
SA (SJ)
Perennial
Both
7
130
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S9
Crossing/Culvert
Permanent
Culvert JSA
Perennial
Both
7
71
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeel)
Countersunk Ri ra
P PAverage
Permanent
Stabilization JSA
Perennial
BothS10
(feet)
(linearfeel)
Excavation
Tem orar
P YAverage
Excavation JSA
Perennial
BothS11
(feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S12
Excavation
Tem orar
P Y
Excavation
SL
Intermittent
Both
6
30
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
�3]�ExcavationY
Temporar
Excavation
SL
Intermittent
Both
10
43
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
�4]�Crossing/CulvertAverage
Permanent
Culvert
SL
Perennial
Both
10
89
(feet)
(linearfeet)
M
Riprap
Countersunk Ri ra
Permanent
Stabilization
SL
Perennial
Both
10
10
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
263
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
734
3j. Comments:
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
471
All stream crossings with temporary impacts will be dewatered, then open -cut to install a 12" gravity -fed sewer pipe. After installation, the open -cut
areas will be covered with the original material excavated from the stream bed. Excavated stream channels will be returned to the original streambed
contour and elevation and deemed stabilized prior to allowing water to flow again through those stream reaches.
The 10 feet of countersunk rip -rap pad at each culvert/crossing site (SA, SE, SL) will be permanent, but wdll be flush with the streambed and Will not
result in a loss of water.
4. Open Water Impacts

4a. Site # 4all. Impact Reason 4b. Impact type 4c. Name of wat,rbody 4d. Activity type 4e. Waterbody type 4f. Impact area
01
Drainage
P
PF
Drainage 11
Pond
553
02
Drainage
P
PE
Drainage
Pond
0.60
4g. Total temporary open water Impacts:
0.00
4g. Total open water impacts:
1.13
4h. Comments:
4g. Total permanent open water impacts:
1.13
These ponds are proposed to be drained, daylighting Poplin Branch throughout both pond locations. Please see the attached Pond Drainage Plan
and Preliminary Restoration Plan related to these impacts.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
This project has been designed with as few crossings of jurisdictional features as possible to allow access to each developable parcel while also
meeting County codes. The crossings have been designed to minimize jurisdictional impacts by avoiding features wherever possible. Where crossings
occur, they are as close to perpendicular as possible. Construction has been sequenced and designed to avoid/minimize impacts by locating
temporary diversion channels away from features. Rip rap at structure inlets and outlets will be minimized and countersunk so as not to impact aquatic
passage. An estimated up -to 733 linear feet of stream
will be daylighted on -site by draining Ponds PE and PF and allowing Poplin Branch to reform. Please see the attached Pond Drainage Plan and
Preliminary Restoration Plan for details of the restoration. For the installation of the sewer pipe, all stream crossing impacts will be temporary impacts
only. These stream crossings Will be dewatered, then open -cut to install a 12" gravity -fed sewer pipe. After installation the open -cut areas will be
covered with the original material excavated from the stream bed. Excavated stream channels Will be returned to the original streambed contour and
elevation and deemed stabilized prior to allowing water to flow
again through those stream reaches. Temporary wetland impacts are all associated with the placement of the 12" gravity sewer line. Existing
vegetation will be removed, and wetland soil will be temporarily displaced to install the sewer line. After installation, the wetland soil will be returned,
and the contour and elevation of the sites Will be restored to pre-existing conditions. A native wetland seed mix will then be spread to restore
hydrophytic vegetation to the sites.
Please see the attached Grading and Erosion Control Plan for additional measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts through design.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Silt fencing will be installed at the base of slopes to prevent runoff during construction. Construction on this project shall be in accordance with Stanly
County standard details, code of ordinances, and standard specifications. Construction on this project shall be in accordance with all applicable
current county, state, and utility provider standards, specifications, and building codes. The contractor shall grade, seed and sod or otherwise provide
temporary and permanent stabilization of all disturbed areas, especially slopes. Road runoff will be conveyed via vegetated svrales. Therefore, road
runoff is not discharged directly into the streams. The
contractor will follow the attached Grading and Erosion Control Plan during construction to avoid and minimize project -related erosion and stormwater
issues.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes
r No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
W DWR
W Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used for this project?
r Mitigation bank W Payment to in -lieu fee W Permittee Responsible
program Mitigation
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
r Yes r No
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
(linear feet)
233
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWR only):
(squarefeet)
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4h. Comments
4c. If using stream mitigation, what is the stream temperature:
warm
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
USACE, in response to the updated permit application submitted to them on December 11, 2020, has requested mitigation on the 233 linear feet of
stream impacts related to culvert installation along Streams SE, SA, and SL. They will consider the pond restoration mitigation for the pond drainage
impacts.

5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan including mitigation credits generated.
Please see the attached Preliminary Restoration Plan and Pond Drainage Plan associated with the project. Onsite restoration is being proposed
where Ponds PE and PF are being drained. Following pond drainage, an estimated up -to 733 linear feet of Poplin Branch that was previously
impounded will be daylighted. The stream will be allowed to naturally re-channelize at the pond sites once the ponds are drained, with stabilization,
where necessary. The drained area will be re -vegetated and monitored per the restoration plan. It is also assumed that wetland pockets will develop in
the drained areas adjacent to the re-channelized stream. We had hoped to use the restoration of this site to offset any permanent stream and wetland
impacts associated with the project. However, USACE has requested that this restoration only be used to offset the pond drainage impacts. We do not
anticipate using the pond site as a mitigation bank in the event that the amount of stream and wetland restored/created exceeds the amount of
compensatory mitigation required. Since the ponds have not been drained yet and the state of the pond beds is currently unknown, we have
designated the restoration plan as preliminary. Also, we can revise any items in the preliminary plan after it is reviewed by the agencies. We would
also like to request a site visit with regulatory agencies once the ponds are drained to determine any additional conditions or revisions that would be
required to finalize the restoration plan and monitoring guidelines. Upon completion of monitoring and review by agencies, an as -built of the
restoration site will be provided upon construction completion showing the new stream location and any wetland areas that have developed.
5b. Mitigation Plan Upload
12_ACC Pond Drainage Plans_REV.pdf 658.28KB
13_ACC Preliminary Stream and Riparian Area Restoration Plan_REV.pdf 179.96KB
6. Buffer mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWR
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation? If yes, you must fill out this entire form - please contact DWR for more
information.
r Yes r No
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR) U
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
This project is located within the Yadkin-PeeDee River Basin. There are currently no riparian buffer rules for this basin.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
There is currently no local or state stormwater program in place. The project will follow low density requirements
for all proposed and future development. Please see the attached Grading and Erosion Control Plan for more
details regarding stormwater management.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land? *
r Yes r No
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? *
r Yes r No
Comments:*
This project is entirely municipally -funded and does not require NEPA/SEPA documentation.
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No

3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed concept plan is a full build -out of the project site. No additional development or expansion of the site is planned. The City also does not
anticipate acquisition of property adjacent to this project that would result in additional development that would impact nearby downstream water
quality. As this is a business center, it is not expected that this project would promote/trigger any nearby residential development adjacent to the
property.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor N/A
4b. Describe, in detail, the treatment methods and dispositions (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project. If the wastewater will be treated
at a treatment plant, list the capacity available at that plant.
Wastewater will be connected to the City of Albemarle's sewer system via a gravity -fed sewer line extension associated with the project.
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
https://www.fv.s.gov/raleigh/species/cntylisttstanly.htmi - bald eagle, NLEB, and Schweinitz's sunflower listed.
http://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/map - Three H. schweinitai populations are known to occur within 1-mile of the southernmost boundary of the
project study area.
hftps://ecos.fim.gov/ipact
https://w,Aw.%%s.gov/asheville/htmis/project_ review/NLEB_ in_WNC.html - not within red HUC
Sewer line right-of-way T&E species surveys were completed in October 2019 - Schweinitts sunflower was not found within the sewer line PSA. There
was no nesting habitat for bald eagle.
Bald eagle surveys were completed in the primary ACC study area and the Leonard Avenue extension on 6/12/20. No nesting habitat, nests, or
individuals were observed.
Schweinitts sunflower surveys within the primary ACC study area and the Leonard Avenue extension study area were conducted in late -August 2020.
A review of potential habitat was completed on 6/12120 (see attached sunflower habitat map ) and was the focus of the August surveys. The results of
this survey were compiled into a survey report (attached) and a biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect was rendered for the
species (due to habitat presence, proAmity of known occurrences, but no individuals identified with project boundary).
Consultation Documentation Upload
14_Three Oaks_ACC _Hel_Schw Survey_Memo_September 2020_Flat.pdf 932.05KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
https://vAAw.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.html
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? *

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
15_SHPO Letter ER 19-0238.pdf 94.44KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=albemarle / 2C % 20nc#searchresultsanchor
r
Miscellaneous
Comments
An original application was submitted for this project via a-PCN on July 21, 2020 (SAW-2018-00566; NCDWR Project No. DWR 20-0941). Per request by agencies, a request to withdraw
was submitted on December 7, 2020. This is a re -submittal of that application.
The re -submitted PCN application package was provided to USACE via email/DoD SAFE on 12/11/2020. This a-PCN is intended for use by NCDWR only.
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
1—ACC—PCN Cover Letter_01192021_NCDWR.pdf 472.63KB
Signature u
*
W By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; and
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 have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
James Mason
Signature
��ifW ewlq�&W
Date
1 /20/2021

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Michael Ferris
City of Albemarle
144 N Second Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
January 15, 2021
Expiration of Acceptance: 7/15/2021
Project: Albemarle Corporate Center County: Stanly
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin
Impact Location
(8-digit HUC)
Impact Type
Impact Quantity
Yadkin
03040105
Warm Stream
233
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: James Mason, agent
Sincerely,
Av�t�u�
FOR James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
NORTH CAROLINAD_E
Department of Environ—tal quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 654702867363
STREET ADDRESS: 24524 South Business 52 S., Albemarle, NC 28001
Please print:
Property Owner: City of Albemarle
Property Owner:
ATTN: Michael Ferris, City Manager
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
James Mason
Nathan Howell of Three Oaks Engineering
(Contractor/Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance
of this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
9 Y q �%...S e c un t- e t t 416-p-M(` LVC 2 0 oo 1
Telephone: [phone]
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
James Digitally signed by James
Mason
Mason Date:2021.01.15
11:25:51-05'00'
Auth o rizedSig nature Authorized Signature
Date: ZU�� Date: 02/05/2020

J 1 F
O Q i�
z Q ¢ 4
NG _V BYPASS r _
5 vv40
HASTINGS �..M
1 rt O —I
I Z' rn
U'
�•_ 0
F L1
L i
BM
�. .
r
r s_
op
z � , y Ov r �•
j
ACC Original Study Area
Ilk � 7-� F iU
ACC Additional Sewer Study Area ap
ACC Leonard Ave PSA 5�0:a
Road Jop00 ' Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic.Society, i-cubed
y,LL Prepared For:
Chambers
Engineering
Albemarle Corporate Center
Permit Application
Site Topographic Map
Stanly County, North Carolina
Dace: June 2020
Scale:0 200 400 Feet
IWJ
Job No.:
18-607
Drawn By:
Checked By:
NH
JM
Figure

XS J
G
I �
S E
�Vo
� SPAU�DINC' m ' NG 24-27
r
r
m
,r
Gar
X is O `-.
�
t7,
° SaB
G�'� GC?c
HASTINGS �
U d
� � 1
�%p N
O
WOOOHURSrn
Z/-�
U'
KkO
r a)
LU
> BaB
0
r [ •'
0 Ilk
GOF
5•'
x�a Baa
BaB
Goo
icy` k8 - 1
03
ff
(P
En(
U aD _ ;;J'A -
' k00 +�
W k
J F
r
ACC Original Study Area
r--jACC Additional Sewer Study Area `�
ACC Leonard Ave PSA
� Road -- �o X
,f .% � 5 , L' wd;
•�_ �
,0ERiPrepared For:
+fr+7
Chambers
Engineering
Albemarle Corporate Center
Permit Application
Site NRCS Soils Map
Stanly County, North Carolina
Dace: June 2020
Scale: 0 200 400 Feet
W
Job No.:
18-607
Drawn By:
Checked By:
NH
JM
Figure

1
t
t'
+4
100,000 SF
i
6
50,000 SF 0,000SF
50,000 SF
60,000 SF
101,250 SF
aenm,. �wEre � 60,000 SF
i t
PO —D 1.11
150,000SF
75,000 SF
e
e
e ,
50.000 SF
90,000 SF
100,0005E
195,000 SF �
200,000 SF
o
0
_ o
7.
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
P� LEGEND CITY OF ALBEMARLE
ALBEMARLE = chambeas ALBEMARLE BUSINESS CENTER
Fk.-.f'.G!(ly.n.�, E.���°4 P°°a d Concept Map

Justification about why alternative routes were not Dursued or were not feasible
Below is a justification about why the proposed roadway route for the Albemarle Corporate
Center was chosen. The alternative routes (see page 2) were provided by Alan Johnson from
NCDWR, who asked for explanation about why they were not pursued:
1. With regard to the red route, the red route connection to existing roads on the north side
of the property is not possible because of property constraints and existing development.
The majority of what you proposed is beyond the limits of what is owned by the City. The
City -owned property is bounded by dark green on the attached "Alternative Routes"
.jpg. The City has acquired narrow road ROWS outside of their property to connect to the
existing streets. Further, the jurisdictional features were delineated generally to the
extent of City property and if further delineated, we are confident that your proposed
route here would also cross the same number of features as currently proposed. There is
also an existing house right in the route and the possibility for multi -family development
on the property directly to the north of the City's property where you have proposed a
connection to Leonard Ave.
2. The proposed crossing between the ponds utilizes an existing road, thus minimizing
jurisdictional impacts. In the existing state, Poplin Branch is a perennial stream that has
been dammed to create the ponds. Our team believes that removing in water structures
on live streams and returning them to natural flow conditions would be more
environmentally beneficial. Your proposed blue route would cross two streams, Poplin
Branch and a parallel UT, necessitating a wider footprint and essentially twice the stream
impact, and not remove the ponds on Poplin Branch. Also, we believe that removing the
ponds responsibly is preferable from not only an environmental/ecological perspective,
but also from a maintenance perspective. Having a stabilized, eventually natural,
streambed does not require the maintenance or future possible issues of two ponds. The
blue route also does not allow the same road frontage/access along Business 52 as the
proposed route does.
3. As shown on the previously provided built -out conceptual plan, we have attempted to
reduce stream crossings and where necessary, cross at as close to a 90-degree angle as
possible. We balanced this with trying to place future buildings in areas that are currently
cleared, and preserving as much wooded area as possible, all while ensuring that there is
sufficient construction potential and creating an attractive development such that the
Corporate Center will be financially successful for the City. The red route does not allow
the same access to developable areas within the property as our proposed road does. For
example, sites with best existing topography and access to our proposed gravity sewer
network.

tl
do
1
r
L
4
a

Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
September 9, 2020
Town of Albemarle
ATTN: Michael Ferris, City Manager
144 N. Second Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
SUBJECT: Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzit) Survey Report for Proposed
Albemarle Corporate Center Project Site (Stanly County, North Carolina)
Dear Mr. Ferns:
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks) was retained by Chambers Engineering, PA to conduct a protected species
survey for the federally -endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) within a 282-acre project study
area located immediately west of Groves Avenue and east of South Business 52 in Albemarle, N.C. (Parcel PIN Nos.
654702867363 and 654804904100 [partial]). An additional 11-acre portion of the project area along the proposed
sewer line extension was previously assessed in 2019 and determined to have no habitat for this species and, therefore,
did not require surveys (Appendix A; Figure 1). This memo presents the findings of this plant survey, which was
conducted on August 20, 2020. The survey was led by Three Oaks Senior Environmental Scientist Mary Frazer.
Qualifications for personnel who performed the surveys are as follows:
Lead
Investigator: Mary Frazer
Education: M.E.M. Resource Ecology, Duke University
B.S. Zoology, University of Wisconsin
Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, July 2015-present
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2000-2015
Environmental Specialist, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, 1996-2000
Water Regulation Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1994-1996
Biologist, Soil and Environmental Consultants, 1992-1994
Experience Surveying
for Subject Species:
Twenty years of experience surveying for Schweinitz's sunflower, initially working for the
NC Department of Transportation, conducting surveys for highway construction and bridge
replacement projects.
Conducted surveys, mitigation work and monitoring for Schweinitz's sunflower for the
Charlotte outer loop construction (R-2248E) & I-485/I-85 interchange modifications (R-
2123) in Mecklenburg County.
Conducted surveys, mitigation work and monitoring for Schweinitz's sunflower for Surratt
Road improvements in Davidson County, Caraway Mountain Road in Randolph County and
Orrell Road in Stokes County.
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

• Conducted regular monitoring of 90 Schweinitz's sunflower populations in NCDOT rights -
of -way.
• As a Three Oaks staff member, continued to perform Schweinitz's sunflower surveys on
NCDOT, municipal, and private projects, such as NC 24-24 Improvements (R-2303B) in
Stanly County.
Investigator: Nathan Howell
Education: B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, North Carolina State University, 2013
M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, 2015
Experience: Three Oaks Engineering, October 2015 — Present
Experience Surveying
for Subject Species:
• As a Three Oaks staff member, Nathan has approximately 5 years of experience surveying
for Schweinitz's sunflower.
Schweinitz's Sunflower Morphology and Habitat Description
(via U.S Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWSI: https:Hecos.fws.2ov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfde?sId=3849 )
Morphology: Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial that grows approximately 6.5 feet (ft) (2.0 meters; m) tall (though
it can be shorter if young or injured) and can occasionally reach heights of 16 ft (4.8 m). It has thickened roots that
are used by the plant to store starch. The stem is purplish in color, and the upper third bears secondary branches at
45-degree angles. The leaves are arranged in pairs on the lower part of the stem but usually occur singly (or alternate)
on the upper parts. Leaves are attached to the stem at right angles, and the tips of the leaves tend to droop. The
leaves are thick and stiff, have a rough upper surface with broad spiny hairs that are directed toward the tip and soft
white hairs that cover the underside. The plant produces small yellow flowers from late August until frost. This
species is able to colonize through the dispersal of seeds that readily germinate without a dormant period. The optimal
survey window for this species is late August — October.
Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in full to partial sun and is found in areas with poor soils, such
as thin clays that vary from wet to dry. It is believed that this species once occurred in natural forest openings or
grasslands. Many of the remaining populations occur along roadsides.
Survey Results
The survey for this project occurred slightly prior to the optimal survey window for the target species. Therefore,
Three Oaks' staff members visited an extant Schweinitz's sunflower reference population (N.C. Natural Heritage
Program [NCNHP] Element Occurrence No. 182 [EO ID 22996]) prior to the survey. This reference population is
located at the intersection of South Business 52 and Stony Gap Road in Albemarle, North Carolina. Schweinitz's
sunflower individuals at the reference site were budding, and several were just beginning to flower. Photographs of
the reference site are located in Appendix B.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower exists within the study area. The best habitat is located along sunny, dry,
clayey field/woodland interfaces, road edges, canopy gaps in forested areas, and early successional openings that
experience periodic mowing. On August 20, 2020 Three Oaks staff members conducted a survey for this species.
Particular attention was paid to the previously mentioned best habitats (Appendix A; Figure 1). Larger early -
successional openings were transected to ensure a thorough review. Schweinitz's sunflower was not detected within
the study area. One colony of spreading sunflower (Helianthus divaricatus) was found within a sunlit oak opening
on a ridge. Early successional species dominated the fallow fields and brushy openings within the property. Species
occurring within these habitats include horseweed (Erigeron bonariensis), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), dogfennel
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

(Eupatorium capillifolium), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), eastern blackberry (Rubus pennsylvanicus), Chinese
lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), and various grass species. Photographs of the site are in Appendix C. The NCNHP
July 2020 dataset indicates no known Schweinitz's sunflower occurrences within the study area. However, two extant
populations (EO Nos. 182 and 117) are located within one mile of the study area. These two populations are located
at the intersections of South Business 52 and Stony Gap Road, and South Business 52 and US Hwy 52. Due to the
presence of known populations within a mile of the study area and negative survey results, , a Biological Conclusion
of "May Affect —Not Likely to Adversely Affect " has been rendered for Schweinitz's sunflower. This determination
will require concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed
JaYy1mesby James Mason L'Oj.
Date: 1'
Mason 14 54 02 04'00'
Mary Frazer
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]
Cc: Sam Smith, PE, Chambers Engineering, PA
Dylan Blalock, EI, Chambers Engineering, PA
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

-- ---- ...... 0
Appendix A
Figures
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

k. 0
: ,'G. 27 gYPASSE y�%p N
D ` SAU�OW _ NG J
00
'* �'�
FIT
INGS v)
HASTLU
PAO
,, yr�
A
i .'4: �J4
Roads =
Q ACC Original Study Area
ACC Leonard Ave Additional Study Area
Q ACC Sewer Line Additional Study Area
Schweinitz's Sunflower Habitat `'fvc c h I -I I
# ''r
44ePrepared For:
Al
1-a
Albemarle Corporate Center
Schweinitz's Sunflower Habitat
Stanly County, North Carolina
Date:
July 2020
Scale:0 300 600 Feet
I i I
Job No.:
18-607
Drawn By:
Checked By:
NH
JM
Figure

0
Appendix B
Schweinitz's Sunflower Reference Site Pictures
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

Reference Site
Photographs

0
Appendix C
Project Site Pictures
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

Project Habitat Photographs

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Iamilton
February 22, 2019
Sam Smith
Chambers Engineering
129 North First Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Develop Albemarle Corporate Center, 24524 South Business 52, Albemarle, Stanly County,
ER 19-0238
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your email of January 24, 2019, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
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 comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Jim Mason
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:51 PM
To: Jim Mason
Subject: Pre -Filing Meeting Request Submittal for Albemarle Corporate Center
Attachments: DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources has received the Pre -Filing Meeting Request
Form for Albemarle Corporate Center that you submitted on 12/11/2020. Attached is a copy of
your initial request.
This email was automatically generated by Laserfiche workflow. Please do not respond to this
email address, as responses aren't monitored.

Contact Name*
Contact Email Address*
Project Owner*
Project Name*
Project County*
Owner Address:*
Is this a transportation project?*
James Mason
[e-mail]
City of Albemarle
Albemarle Corporate Center
Stanly
Street Address
144 North 2nd Street
Address Line 2
PO Box 190
aty
Albemarle
Postal/ Zip axle
28001
r Yes r No
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - F 401 Water Quality Certification -
Regular Express
F Individual Permit F Modification
F Shoreline Stabilization
Does this project have an existing project ID#?*
r Yes C No
Please list all existing project ID's associated with this projects.*
DWR 20-0941
State / Province / Region
North Carolina
Country
USA
Do you know the name of the staff member you would like to request a meeting with?
Alan Johnson
Please give a brief project description below.*
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks), as a sub -consultant to
Chambers Engineering, PA,
is the authorized agent for the Albemarle Corporate Center, which is
a proposed business center being
developed by the City of Albemarle (City), North Carolina. Three
Oaks submitted a Section 404/401 Pre -
Construction Notification (PCN) to USACE and NCDWR on behalf of
the City on July 21, 2020. Per the request of both agencies, the
original application was withdrawn on December 7, 2020 in advance
of a re -submittal. This form is being completed in advance of the re -
submittal to NCDWR.

Please give a couple of dates you are available for a meeting.
12/18/2020
12/21 /2020
Please attach the documentation you would like to have the meeting about.
pdf only
By digitally signing below, I certify that I have read and understood that per the Federal Clean Water Act Section
401 Certification Rule the following statements:
This form completes the requirement of the Pre -Filing Meeting Request in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification
Rule.
1 understand by signing this form that I cannot submit my application until 30 calendar days after this pre -filing
meeting request.
1 also understand that DWR is not required to respond or grant the meeting request.
Your project's thirty -day clock started upon receipt of this application. You will receive notification regarding meeting location
and time if a meeting is necessary. You will receive notification when the thirty -day clock has expired, and you can submit an
application.
Signature *
aww waww
Submittal Date 12/11/2020