20180029 Ver 1_IP Submittal_12.22.17_redacted for DWR_20180102

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Form Approved -
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB No. 0710-0003
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Expires: 31 -AUGUST -2013
Public reporting for this collection of information 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
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). 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 form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
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 maybe 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 not 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.
(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 BYAPPLICAN7)
5. APPLICANTS NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Bernhard Middle - Last - V orreiter
First - Bradley Middle - Last - Luckey
Company - Egger Wood Products, LLC
! Company - Pilot Environmental, Inc.
E-mail Address- [e-mail]
ISE. -mail [e-mail]
f 9. AGENTS ADDRESS:
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS: M-- �- -� _
Address- P.O..Box 907
Address- P.O. Box 128
City - Lexington State - NC Zip - 27293 Country - U.S.
City - Kernersville State - NC Zip -27285 Country-U.S.
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a Residence b. Business c. Fax
980.267.7050
[phone]
STATEMENT•OF AUTHORIZATION
11. I hereby authorize, Pilot Environmental, Inc. ct in mybe all as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
in
supplemental information support of this permit appli n.
1 2017-12-22
SIGN T E OF PPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Egger Wood Products
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
UNT South Potts Creek
Address Belmont Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35.74072 Longitude: -W -80.34455
City - Linwood State- NC Zip- 27299
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID 6702-01-06-6496 Municipality Davidson County
Section - Township - Range -
ENG FORM 4345, JUL 2013 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From intersection of Interstate 85 and Belmont Road: East on Belmont Road approximately 0.50 miles. Site south of Belmont Road.
i
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The overall project consists of development of the site with a large sale composite wood products manufacturing facility. See attached.
I
gg
f
t
s
C
13. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project. see inst'ctions)
h
The purpose of the Proposed Project is to develop a wood based pro ucts manufacturing facility capable of incorporating future
I
technological advances and production lines to allow the facility to viable into the future. See attached.
t
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
In order to develop the site, fill must be placed within 1.00 acre of open water pond, 0.238 acres of wetlands and 49 linear feet of stream
channel. See Attached.
4
'e
p
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Clic Yards:
Type Type 1 Type
i
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards ; Amount in Cubic Yards
a
9
Clean Earthen Fill/Stone - 53,000 cu yd r
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instruction$)
Acres 1.00 Acre Open Water Pond & 0.238 Acre of Wetland !
or c
Linear Feet 49 LF Stream Channel
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
See Attached.
ENG FORM 4345, JUL 2013 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? ❑Yes QX 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 fist).
a. Address- See Attached
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
city - state - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federa% State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICAI EON DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
NCDEQ-DEMLR S&EC NA
NCDEQ-DWR Stormwater NA
NCDEQ-DWR 401 WQC NA
. Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is reby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and acc ra . I further ify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein o am ng as the duty authorized agent of the
applicant.
�, 2U17-12-22 ` r' 2017-12-22
IGNATU OF CANT DATE SIGNAT E OF AGENT DATE
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, JUL 2013 Page 3 of 3

Proposal for Environmental Services
Pilot Proposal 1535.1
September 2Z 2017
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
This form authorizes PEI to act as our agent in stream/wetland matters including U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water Resources field verification and permitting.
Property Address: 3oo E TAS L,,A K
Ivz10G Z 72 9
Applicant Information: �-_CcE�Z j,�/pp� 'Pl(O--Dvc -r-5 L G C
Name: V01CIZE- l i r~ R
Address:i�.o. �34X 70
X! N —a t-1 I, )LIC 7
Telephone Number: -t-1 (9d?0) 26' 7- 70S O
Fax Number:
E-mail Address
Signature
-36RMHAR_rO VORVel+ r R E� �. Com
C.1
Date: /J j .� 20

AGENT AUTHORIZATION
This form authorizes Pilot to act as our agent in stream/wetland matters including U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water Resources field verification and
permitting.
Property Address: 1-85 Business Park
Belmont Rd. Lexington, N.C.
Davidson Count
Owner information:
Address: Davidson County
913 Greensboro St. Post Office Box 1064
Lexington, N.C. 27292
Telephone Number: [phone]
Fax Number: (336)- 242-1203 _
E-mail Address: rex.buck davidsoncounty nc.gov
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REQUEST
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described far the purpose of conducting on-
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Zeb M. Hanner
Property Owner
Date
l
Property4wner Signatu

Davidson County Map Output Page
V-- avidson County GIS. � r
Page 1 of 2
Impact Parcel
Parcel Number :
0401900000025
Land Units: 126.14 AC
Pin Id :
6702-01-06-6496
Deed Book: 0508 Pg: 0528
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Owner:
PO BOX 1067
Deed Date: 02/22/8197
LEXINGTON NC 27293-1067
Property Address:
1220 BELMONT RD
Account Number: 120
Township:
04
Exempt Code:
http://webgis.co.davidson.nc.us/website/DavidsonGIS/printpage.aspx
12/19/2017

Davidson County Map Output Page Page 2 of 2
Building Value: $0 Other Building Value: $0
Land Value: $5,045,600 Market Value: $5,045,600
Assessed Value: $5,045,600 Deferred Value: $0
Legal Description: L25 BK2167-2091 BELMONT RD
ire Service Districts
q.Miles
Tame
ownships
q. Miles
Tame
:ounty Zoning Districts
,one
oil Types
)SL Name
oil Name
ype
ercent S1
unicipal Boundary
o Features Found
inch = 800 feet
Additional Attributes
19.33
LINWOOD FD
35.22
BOONE
DdB
Davidson loam
Loam
2 to 8 percent slopes
0
The information contained on this map does not replace information that may be obtained by
consulting the official source of the information. In no event shall Davidson County, NC or the
consultants of Davidson County, NC be liable for any damages, direct or consequential, from the use
of the information contained on this map.
http://webgis.co.davidson.nc.us/website/DavidsonGIS/printpage.aspx 12/19/2017

^
`
�
--------'
Project Area
�
Owned hvEGGER
|-85Business Park �
Owned byDavidson County
Adjacent Properties _
Owned byDavidson County
Adjacent Properties
�
--�
For Public Advertisement
Adjoining Properties Map
Properties for Public Advertisemm�nt |-Q5Cooperate Park
2Ol6Aerial Photograph from E5R| - Approximate Z]8Acre Tract
Scale: 1"=1,000' ��NN N� Davidson [ount\\N[
0 PILOT ENViT%OkIYTNTA L.INC Pilot Project 1595.1
m�m��w� m , ~�~-~~~-. N

Map
Number
PIN
Owner Name
Street Address
City
Sate
Zip
1
6703-03-30-6623
Beallgray Farm, Inc Charles E Graham
Post Office Box 549
Linwood
NC
27299
2
6702-01-49-0843
The Historic Preservation Foundation of NC,
Inc
Post Office Box 27644
Raleigh
NC
27611
3
6703-03-20-2356
James and Bonnie Graham
1239 Belmont Road
Linwood
NC
27299
4
6703-03-11-2092
Beallmont Farm, Inc
Post Office Box 835
Linwood
NC
27299
5
6702-01-19-0683
Mary Tiano
181 Redwine Road
Linwood
NC
27299
6
6702-01-09-9412
Earl and Martha Williams
218 Redwine Road
Linwood
NC
27299
7
6702-01-09-6492
Tammy Fitzgerald
194 Redwine Road
Linwood
NC
27299
8
6702-01-09-7623
Bonnie King
1441 Rhodes Road
Lexington
NC
27292
9
6703-03-00-5323
William and Eleanor Allen
Post Office Box 61
Linwood
NC
27299
10
6703-03-00-3004
Jimmie and Catherine Michael
245 Old Belmont Road
Linwood
NC
27299
11
5793-04-90-9139
Howard and Myra Fagan
Post Office Box 124
Linwood
NC
27299
12
5793-04-90-6747
Barbara McDowell
247 Old Belmont Road
Linwood
NC
27299
13
5793-04-82-9326
Walser and Matthews
4522 Abbott Loop Road
Jamestown
NC
27282
14
6702-01-17-0438
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc
201 Isabella Street
Pittsburgh
PA
15212
15
6702-01-36-0248
6702-02-58-4049
Southern Rail Terminals of NC
110 Franklin Road SE
Roanoke
VA
24042
16
6702-02-69-6353
Margaret Kern
Post Office Box 45
Linwood
NC
27299
17
6702-02-59-8494
Barry Thompson
2013 Belmont Road
Linwood
I NC
127299
Information Obtained From Davidson County GIs Website On December 8, 2017

APPLICATION FOR SECTION 404/401 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT
: �71i�9iffCeTel�iwi' liZ� - p : o77R"I
APPROXIMATE 238 ACRE TRACT
BELMONT ROAD
LINWOOD, DAVIDSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
EGGER WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
PO BOX 907
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27293
PREPARED BY:
PILOT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
PO BOX 128
KERNERSVILLE, NC 27285
DECEMBER 22, 2017
PEI PROJECT 1595.1
0

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 1
1.0
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................3
1.1
Prosect Description......................................................................................................................
3
1.2
Purpose and Need of Prolect.......................................................................................................5
2.0
BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................6
3.0
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................7
3.1
Literature Review........................................................................................................................
7
3.2
Site Reconnaissance....................................................................................................................
8
3.3
Agency Determinations of Delineation.......................................................................................9
3.4
Open Waters................................................................................................................................9
3.4
Streams......................................................................................................................................10
3.4
Wetlands....................................................................................................................................11
3.6
Watershed Classification...........................................................................................................
12
3.7
Vegetation.................................................................................................................................
12
3.8
Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................
13
3.9
Biological Resources/Endangered Species................................................................................
15
4.0
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION...............................................................................................................
17
5.0
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION....................................................................................
18
6.0
PROPOSED IMPACTS.......................................................................................................................21
7.0
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION...................................................................................................22
8.0
PROPOSED MITIGATION.................................................................................................................24
9.0
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................25
10.0
ATTACHMENTS................................................................................................................................26

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This environmental report was prepared by Pilot Environmental Inc. (PEI) for use by EGGER Wood
Products, LLC (Applicant) in obtaining an individual permit that will allow the construction of the
proposed large scale composite wood products manufacturing facility (Proposed Project or
Proposed Facility), on an approximate 238 acre tract located south of Belmont Road in Linwood,
Davidson County, North Carolina (Project Area). The Project Area consists of Lots four and five
within the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park. The Proposed Facility will be developed in three
phases over the course of 8 to 15 years.
Impacts to Waters of the U.S. (WoUS) are required for completion of the first phase of the
Proposed Project. Impacts to WoUS are not anticipated or proposed for future phases of the
Proposed Project. The purpose of this report is to provide sufficient information that will enable
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Department of
Environment Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Water Resources (DWR) to evaluate the Proposed
Project.
Davidson County, the owner of the Project Area, previously obtained Section 404/401
authorizations for permanent and temporary impacts associated with providing sanitary sewer
services to the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park. Davidson County was not aware of the
Applicant's potential purchase of the Project Area at the time the previous authorizations were
obtained. It is the Applicant's understanding that the previous impacts to WoUS associated with
1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park sanitary sewer improvements and those proposed in this
application are considered cumulative in accordance with a single and complete project as
defined in the federal Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 33 CFR 330.2(i).
The purpose of the Proposed Project is to develop a large scale composite wood products
manufacturing facility within the North American market that is capable of incorporating future
technological advances and production lines to allow the facility to remain viable in the future.
The Proposed Project is located in an area that has been determined to have high market place
demand for manufactured goods, an adequate supply of raw materials, an adequate work force
of highly skilled laborers and desirable logistics due to geographic location for export of produced
goods and import of raw materials.
An extensive alternatives analysis has been conducted to determine the Proposed Project as the
preferred alternative. The alternatives evaluated include the following: a no build alternative, a
no permit alternative, off-site alternative locations of over 50 sites, an off-site location within the
1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park and four on-site alternatives. The preferred alternative was
selected because it met the applicant's purpose and need while avoiding and minimizing
significant adverse effects to the environment.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
The Proposed Project will result in the unavoidable permanent impact to 1.00 acre of open water
pond, 0.238 acres of wetlands and 49 linear feet of stream channel. The Applicant has utilized
several alternative options to the Proposed Facility, design specifications and construction
techniques in attempts to avoid and minimize impacts to WoUS. While the Applicant has
attempted to avoid and minimize impacts to WoUS to the extent possible, unavoidable impacts
to wetlands are proposed to be mitigated with compensatory mitigation from the NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Mitigation is not proposed for impacts to the open water
pond or stream impacts. The applicant will purchase 0.24 acres of wetland credits, which will
exceed mitigation credit requirements based on the applicant's proposal.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The project is a proposed Egger Wood Products, LLC (EGGER or Applicant) large scale composite
wood products manufacturing facility (Proposed Project or Proposed Facility), on an approximate
238 acre tract located south of Belmont Road in Linwood, Davidson County, North Carolina
(Project Area). The Project Area consists of lots four and five within the 1-85 Corporate Center
Industrial Park. The Proposed Facility will be developed in three phases over the course of 8 to
15 years.
Phase I of development includes construction of a particle board production facility comprised of
raw material storage areas, production lines including automated conveyors between production
areas/buildings, finished product storage, administration buildings, maintenance buildings and
necessary infrastructure to support manufacturing. Necessary infrastructure includes rail spur
extensions and an access drive for import and export of raw materials and finished products,
electricity sub -station and relocation of an overhead transmission line, a fire suppression system,
water treatment system and a stormwater management pond. Particle board production within
Phase I of development will be a variety of forms and sizes for different end users.
Phase II of the development is anticipated to occur within the next five years. Phase II of
development includes the construction of a second manufacturing line that produces panels,
finished furniture parts and kitchen cabinet parts. Phase III of the development is anticipated to
occur within the next 8 to 15 years and will include the construction of a third wood panel
production line. The type of production line in Phase III will be determined based upon market
conditions at that time and could manufacture orientated strand board (OSB), medium density
fiberboards (MDF) or another type of thermally fused laminate (TFL). Phase III will also include
an ancillary glues/resins production facility to support the Phase I and Phase III primary
manufacturing lines. Due to safety and regulatory concerns, the glue/resin building cannot be
located proximate to raw material storage or the three proposed manufacturing lines.
Infrastructure to support Phases II and III will be extended or installed as Phases II and III are
constructed. Production chains of Phase I are not increased by Phases II and III.
The attached Civil Exhibits, prepared by Stimmel Associates, PA, show the Proposed Facility and
phases of development.
The Applicant has designed the Proposed Facility based upon numerous successful existing
facilities located throughout Europe and South America that have similar production layouts and
requirements. The flow of the manufacturing process is critical to the efficiency of production
and must be circular in nature. Spacing and layout of production lines and ancillary features are
equally imperative for production efficiency and safety. As such, existing facilities share similar
rectangular dimensions, characteristics and production/ancillary features as the Proposed
Facility. One example of this is the production facility located in Radauti, Romania. The Radauti

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
facility has similar characteristics compared to the Proposed Project that include: shape;
dimensions of length and width of developed area; under roof square footage; production
capacity; raw material storage capacity, logistics for import of raw goods and export of finished
products; and, necessary infrastructure to support production. An aerial image of the Radauti
production facility is shown below in Aerial Photograph 1.
^�.a•ti d l
Aerial Photograph 1— View of the Radauti facility in Romania.
The Proposed Project will have a significant benefit to nearby populace and the local economy.
The Applicant will invest approximately $700,000,000 in capital investments associated with the
full build out of the Proposed Project; thus, providing short term immediate benefits through the
creation of temporary jobs and the subsequent increase in demand for associated goods and
services. Long term benefit to nearby populace and the local economy include the estimated
creation of 770 employment opportunities and the anticipated increase to existing and future
industries that will provide raw materials or purchase finished products from the Proposed
Facility. Additionally, the geographic location will reduce shipping costs and times creating a
more efficient stream -lined process for the furniture industry.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
1.2 Purpose and Need of Project
The purpose of the Proposed Project is to develop a large scale composite wood products
manufacturing facility within the North American market that is capable of incorporating future
technological advances and production lines to allow the facility to remain viable in the future.
The Proposed Project is located in an area that has been determined to have high market place
demand for manufactured goods, an adequate supply of raw materials, an adequate work force
of highly skilled laborers and desirable logistics due to geographic location for export of produced
goods and import of raw materials.
The site is located in an area that is and has historically been known for its strong furniture
industry and number of furniture establishments. Several of the largest furniture producers in
the United States are located within 50 miles of the site. Competition for raw materials
associated with pulp and paper manufactures is relatively low in proximity to the Proposed
Project. The geographic location of the Proposed Project is centrally located in the eastern
United States, thus providing optimal logistics for shipping manufactured products and receipt of
raw materials. The project area is situated in proximity to Interstate -85 and an existing rail line
switch yard, both of which are necessary criteria of the Applicant's off-site alternative's analysis
and imperative to the sustainability of the Applicant's long-term business model to accommodate
variability and fluctuation in the market place.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
2.0 BACKGROUND
The Project Area consists of lots four and five within the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park.
The 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park is an approximate 432 acre tract of which the Project
Area is an approximate 238 acre portion. In January of 2017, Davidson County, the owner of the
1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park, requested U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 Verification and a North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR) 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) for
proposed impacts to Waters of the US (WoUS) associated with providing municipal sanitary
sewer improvements to provide service to the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park.
In May of 2017, a NWP 12 and a 401 WQC were authorized for Davidson County to complete
municipal sanitary sewer improvements that provide service to the 1-85 Corporate Center
Industrial Park. Copies of these documents are included as attachments. According to the NWP
12 Verification (SAW -2017-02504) and the 401 WQC (DWR# 20170130), the following impacts to
WoUS were authorized:
Table 1— Impact Summary of 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park
Type of Impact
Wetlands
Stream
Permanent
0.22 Acres*
43 Linear Feet
Temporary
0.62 Acres
541 Linear Feet
*denotes no net loss, permanent impact from conversion
As a special condition of the NWP 12 Verification and 401 WQC, compensatory mitigation from
the NCDEQ-Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) was utilized to off -set loss of function as a result
of the permanent conversion of 0.22 acres of wetlands. Additional remarks within the USACE
NWP 12 Verification indicate that overall development within the 1-85 Corporate Center
Industrial Park could be developed without requiring impacts to WoUS, outside of those
proposed within the NWP 12 Verification.
A letter provided by the owner of the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park dated December 15,
2017 from Davidson County (attached) documents the extensive and long history of development
of the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park. The letter provides additional information
confirming that Davidson County was not aware of the Applicant's development of the Proposed
Project at the time of the request or processing of the previously issued NWP 12 Verification or
401 WQC. It is the Applicant's understanding that the previous impacts to WoUS associated with
1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park sanitary sewer improvements and those proposed in this
application are considered cumulative in accordance with a single and complete project as
defined in the federal Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 33 CFR 330.2(1).

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Literature Review
PEI reviewed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of Davidson County, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and the Geologic Map of North Carolina to determine
information about the Project Area.
• The USGS Topographic Map (Drawing 1) identifies a pond and an unnamed tributary to
South Potts Creek on the central and southern portions of the Project Area. A second
unnamed tributary to South Potts Creek is shown on the northern portion of the Project
Area. Additional isolated ponds are depicted on the southeastern portion of the site and
along a portion of the northeastern Project Area boundary.
• The USDA Web Soil Survey of Davidson County (Drawing 2) identifies the following soil
mapping units within the project area:
- Armenia loam (ArA) -The Armenia series consists of poorly drained, slowly permeable soils
that occur on small to medium flood plains or nearly level upland flats and depressions.
- Cecil sandy loam (CcB and CcD) - The Cecil series consists of well drained, moderately
permeable soils that occur on ridges and side slopes.
- Chewacla loam (ChA) - The Chewacla series consists of somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils that occur on floodplains.
- Davidson loam (DdB and DdD) - The Davidson series consists of well drained, moderately
permeable soils that occur on gently sloping to moderately steep uplands.
- Mecklenburg loam (MeB and MeD) - The Mecklenburg series consists of well drained,
slowly permeable soils that occur on nearly level to moderately steep uplands.
- Pacolet sandy loam (PaQ - The Pacolet series consists of well drained, moderately
permeable soils that occur on gently sloping to very steep uplands.
- Udorthents (Ud) - Udorthents occur on nearly level to gently sloping areas where original
soils have been cut away, covered with a loamy fill material or altered in a way that the
natural soil series is no longer distinguishable.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
— Urban Land (Ur) - Urban land consists of soils that have been graded, capped with
impervious surfaces, compacted or otherwise altered to the extent that designation of a
series is not feasible.
The Armenia (ArA) and Chewacla (ChA) soil mapping units are identified on the Davidson
County Hydric Soils List. The remaining soil mapping units within the Project Area are not
listed on the Davidson County Hydric Soils List.
• The last published USDA Soil Survey of Davidson County (Drawing 2A), depicts a pond on
the central portion of the Project Area and an unnamed tributary to South Prong Creek on
the northern portion of the Project Area.
• The NWI Map (Drawing 3) depicts two freshwater ponds on the southern portion of the
Project Area and a third freshwater pond along a portion of the northeastern Project Area
boundary. A lake is depicted along a portion of the southwestern boundary. Riverine
features are depicted on the northern, central and southern portions of the Project Area.
An emergent wetland is depicted on the central portion of the Project Area and freshwater
forested wetlands are depicted on the central, northern and northwestern portions of the
Project Area.
• The FEMA FIRM (Drawing 4) identifies limited areas on the northern and western portions
of the Project Area as being located within the 100 -year floodplain. The remainder of the
site is depicted within Zone X, areas outside the 100 -year floodplain.
• The Geologic Map of North Carolina indicates that the Project Area is located in the
Charlotte Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. In general, the soils encountered
in this area are the residual product of in-place chemical weathering of rock underlying
the site. Typically, shallow unconfined groundwater movement within soils is controlled
largely by topographic gradients. Recharge occurs primarily by infiltration along higher
elevations and typically discharges into streams or other surface water bodies. The
elevation of the shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly with seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation.
3.2 Site Reconnaissance
PEI visited the site several times between 2015 to 2017. PEI conducted a field delineation on the
1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park, which contains the Project Area between September 7 to
14, 2015. A single-family residence and associated outbuildings are located on the southeastern
portion of the site. Gravel and earthen fill storage areas are located on the central and
northeastern portions of the site. An overhead electricity transmission line transects the
southern portion of the site. Unimproved compacted soil roads are located on the central and

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
southeastern portion of the Project Area. The remainder of the site contains agricultural fields
and wooded land.
Open water ponds are located on the central and southern portions of the Project Area. The
pond located on the central portion of the site is not hydrologically connected to down -gradient
waters. The pond on the southern portion of the site is hydrologically connected to down -
gradient waters. Two streams are located on the northern portion of the site and a third stream
is located on the southern portion of the site. Wetlands are located on the northern, western
and southern portions of the site. The wetlands directly abut streams and the open water pond
located on the site and South Potts Creek, located west of the Project Area.
3.3 Agency Determinations of Delineation
The field delineation was verified in the field by Mr. John Thomas (USACE) on October 19, 2015.
Following the field verification, Mr. Thomas processed an Approved USACE Notification of
Jurisdictional Determination dated October 19, 2015 (SAW -2015-02177) based on a PEI
approximate locations delineation map. Following completion of a survey conducted by a NC
licensed surveyor, Mr. Thomas processed an Approved USACE Notification of Jurisdictional
Determination dated February 24, 2016 based upon a surveyed wetlands PLAT. Due to the size
of the files, copies of the USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determinations are not included as
attachments, but can be provided separately upon request.
According to the USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determinations, the pond centrally located
on the Project Area was determined to be a USACE non -jurisdictional farm pond constructed
within uplands. The remaining open water pond, streams and wetlands located on the Project
Area were determined to be WoUS. The attached Drawing 5 depicts the Project Area and the
surveyed locations of the USACE non -jurisdictional farm pond and WoUS.
On behalf of Davidson County, PEI submitted a letter dated October 19, 2015 to the NCDEQ-DWR
to request clarification of NCDEQ-DWR regulations concerning the USACE non -jurisdictional farm
pond centrally located on the site. The NCDEQ-DWR responded to the letter requested with a
letter dated October 20, 2015 (attached). The NCDEQ-DWR letter indicated that within
accordance 15 NCAC 024 .1301(e) that discharges to isolated man-made ponds are exempt from
NCDEQ-DWR permitting regulations.
3.4 Open Waters
One open water pond is located on the southern portion of the Project Area. The open water
pond, designated as PX 1-43 and PXA 1-12, is one acre in size and will be impacted by the
Proposed Project. The open water pond has a flashboard riser structure located on the southern
face of the pond dam. Based upon many visits to the Project Area by PEI representatives, the
open water pond appears to be seasonally flooded and water level is controlled for recreational
water fowl hunting. Evidence of aquatic habitat and passage to other down -gradient waters is

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
significantly limited due to fluctuating water levels and the use of the flashboard riser. Wetlands
are located up -gradient of the open water pond and the pond discharges to an intermittent
stream.
3.4 Streams
The project area contains three streams. The streams have been classified as perennial and
intermittent. Stream descriptions are included in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Project Area Streams
Approximate
Approximate Length
Stream
Length of
Identifier
of Perennial
Classification
Intermittent
Stream (LF)
Stream (LF)
SAA 1-8
Perennial
0
160
SAB 1-35
Perennial
0
670
SX 1-4
Intermittent
90
Total:
90
830
Stream SAA 1-8 is a perennial stream located on the northern portion of the Project Area and is
not proposed to be impacted by the Proposed Project. Wetlands are located up and down -
gradient and adjacent to Stream SAA 1-8. This stream has a strongly defined channel with
meanders. Stream SAA 1-8 has a weakly defined riffle -pool complex and limited amounts of
substrate sorting. Flowing water, limited amounts of iron -oxidizing bacteria, several Amphipods
and a small crayfish have been documented during several evaluations of this stream by PEI
representatives. Other aquatic life has not been observed within this stream.
Stream SAB 1-35 is a perennial stream located on the northern portion of the Project Area and is
not proposed to be impacted by the Proposed Project. Stream SAB 1-35 originates at a head cut
on the northern portion of the site and discharges into the South Potts Creek wetland system
located northwest of the Project Area. Stream SAB 1-35 contains a well-defined channel,
numerous meanders, strong substance sorting and a moderate riffle -pool complex. Flowing
water and the presence of diverse aquatic macro -invertebrates, crayfish and amphibians have
been documented within this stream during several evaluations completed by PEI
representatives. Wetlands are located up -gradient and directly abut this stream.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
Stream SX 1-4 is an intermittent stream located on the southern portion of the Project Area. The
upper reach of Stream SX 1-4 will be impacted by the Proposed Project. Stream SX 1-4 originates
at the discharge point of the open water pond designated as PX 1-43/PXA 1-12 and exist the
Project Area from the southern boundary. Stream SX 1-4 contains a well-defined channel, limited
meanders and is incised up to five feet. Moderate substrate sorting is present within this stream.
However, a riffle pool complex, bars, benches or other geomorphic characteristics conducive of
supporting aquatic life are absent or significantly limited. Neither flowing water nor evidence of
aquatic life has been documented during several evaluations completed by PEI representatives.
Wetlands are not located adjacent to Stream SX 1-4.
PEI completed a North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) form, NCDEQ-DWR Stream
Identification Form, Version 4.11 and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet for Stream
SX 1-4. These forms are included within the attachments. Based upon our assessment and the
results of these forms, it is the opinion of PEI that Stream SX 1-4 is a low -quality intermittent
stream.
3.4 Wetlands
Descriptions of jurisdictional wetlands located on the Project Area are included in Table 3.
Table 3: Project Area Wetlands
Wetland
ID
Approximate Acreage
WA 48-287
0.448
WAA 1-184
1.857
WT 1-8
0.363
WXA 1-22
0.238
Total:
2.906
Wetlands WA 48-287 and WAA 1-184 are broad leaved deciduous palustrine forested wetlands
that are located on the northern and western portions of the site. The upper reach of Wetland
WAA 1-184, up -gradient of Stream SAB 1-35, appears to be routinely timbered, the last occurring
approximately five to eight years ago. The majority of these wetlands are mature bottomland
hardwood forests that appear to be seasonally inundated or saturated to the soil surface and
contain water stained leaves, oxidized rhizospheres and water marks on trees. These wetlands
will not be impacted by the Proposed Project.
Wetland WT 1-8 is a basin wetland that has formed within the bottom of a former irrigation pond.
Sporadic woody vegetation is present within this wetland due to areas of long duration
inundation. These wetlands will not be impacted by the Proposed Project.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
Wetland WX1-22 is a headwater wetland located within a drainage swale up -gradient of Pond PX
-1-43/PXA 1-12 and will be impacted by the proposed project. The majority of Wetland WX 1-22
contains herbaceous vegetation and sporadic woody vegetation that is routinely maintained by
agronomic production or mowing. A thin wooded strip consisting of mature mixed hardwoods
shades a limited portion of the wetland. Oxidized rhizospheres are present within this wetland
and the lower reach of the wetland, proximate to the open water pond, appears to be seasonally
saturated to the soil surface.
PEI has completed a USACE Wetland Determination Data Form and a North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NCWAM) Form for Wetland WX 1-22. These forms are included within the
attachments. Based upon the results of the wetland assessment forms, it is the opinion of PEI
that Wetland WX 1-22 is a low -quality feature.
3.6 Watershed Classification
Unnamed tributaries to South Potts Creek are located on the Project Area. The site is located
within the Yadkin River Basin. The NCDEQ-DWR has classified South Potts Creek, the receiving
waters of the Project Area, as Class C waters.
3.7 Vegetation
The Project Area that will be altered by the proposed development contains predominantly
undeveloped agronomic fields. Limited areas of previously disturbed land (gravel and earthern
fill storage areas) and wooded land. The area of impact within the agronomic fields and
previously disturbed land includes the following mixed grass/weed species: fescue -Kentucky 31
(Schedonorus orundinaceus), meadow fescue (Schedonorus pratensis), bermudagrass (cynodon
dactylon), Bahiagrass (Papsalum notatum), Crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), Common Dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), white clover (Trifolium repens),
horsenettle (Solanum carolinense), horseweed (Conyza conadensis), common ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), wild garlic (Allium canadense), common lespedeza (Lespedeza
cuneato), common pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), dogfennel (Eupotorium capillifolium),
broadleaf plantain (Plantago major), purple deadnettle (Lamium purpureum), common
chickweed (Stellaria media) and Virginia cudweed (Gamochaeto purpurea).
The wooded land, located within the Proposed Project area of disturbance, contains mixed
hardwood/pine species that are dominated by various oak (Quercus sp.), hickory, (Cayra sp.),
maples (Acer sp.) eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sweet gum (Liquidambarstyraciflua),
common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), China berry (Melia azedarach) and Tree of Heaven
(Ailanthus altissima) in the tree/sapling stratum. Understory vegetation includes Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), green briar species (Smilaxsp.), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
The vegetation located within the jurisdictional areas of impact are dominated by the following
species:
Table 4: Vegetation
Species
Stratum
Wetland Indicator
Acer rubrum
Canopy/Midstory
Red Maple
Tree/Sap
FAC
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Canopy/Midstory
Sweet Gum
Tree/Sap
FAC
Salix nigra
Midstory/Understory
Black Willow
Tree/Sap
OBL
Ligustrum sinense
Midstory/Understory
Chinese Privett
Sap/Herb
FAC
Lonicera japonica
Midstory/Understory
Japanese Honeysuckle
Vine/Herb
FAC
Vitus rotundifolia
Midstory/Understory
Muscadine grape
Vine/Herb
FAC
Smilax rotundifolia
Midstory/Understory
Green Briar
Vine/Herb
FAC
Rubus argutus
Understory
Sawtooth Blackberry
Herb
FAC
Juncus effusus
Understory
Common Rush
Herb
FACW
Microstegium vimineum
Understory
Japanese Stilt Grass
Herb
FAC
Schedonorus sp.
Understory
Fescue Grass
Herb
FACU
Conyza canadensis
Understory
Horseweed
Herb
FACU
Eupatorium capillifolium
Understory
Dogfennel
Herb
FACU
Andropogon virginicus
Understory
Bluestem Broomsedge
Herb
FAC
3.8 Cultural Resources
PEI reviewed the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) Web GIS Service map of
registered and eligible historic properties (Drawing 6) and the North Carolina Listings in the
National Register of Historic Places, dated January 19, 2017. Neither the NCSHPO Historic
Properties Office (HPO) map nor the North Carolina List identify registered or eligible historic
properties within the Project Area. Beallmont historic district and an early 19th century
farmhouse, located approximately 100 and 550 feet northeast of the Project Area, respectively,
are identified as being listed on the National Register.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
Davidson County, the owner of the Project Area and the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park
contracted with an environmental consultant to complete a preliminary technical assistance
review with the NCSHPO on the 1-85 Industrial Park. During the preliminary review, NCSHPO
responded to the request with a letter dated September 22, 2014 (ER -14-1900). According to
the letter response from NCSHPO, the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park has never been
systematically surveyed and they recommend a reconnaissance level archaeological investigation
be completed. Additionally, the letter indicates that the Beallmont property (DV0007) is listed
on the National Register and is located within the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park.
New South Associates, Inc. (New South) completed a Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey for
the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park, which contains the Project Area, and submitted the
report to NCSHPO for concurrence in June, 2016. The Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey
indicates that a reconnaissance level survey was completed on the entirety of the 1-85 Corporate
Center Industrial Park and that an intensive archaeological investigation was completed on
approximately six acres that contains the Beallmont house's current location and future
proposed location, outside of the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park. According to the
Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey, seven archaeological sites (including the Beallmont
property) were identified within the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park. These resources were
recommended as not eligible for the National Register. The report recommended that during
the course of movement of the Beallmont house, late discovery resources could be identified and
would have to be evaluated following movement of the Beallmont house. The NCSHPO
responded following a review of the Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey in a letter dated July
21, 2016. The NCSHPO letter response indicates that they concur that the seven identified
archaeological sites are not eligible for listing on the National Register. Additionally, the letter
provides concurrence that if sealed/discrete archaeological features are discovered during the
removal and relocation of the Beallmont House, additional archaeological investigations may be
necessary.
New South completed an Addendum of Archaeological Assessment of Beallmont House Footprint
following the relocation of the Beallmont house outside of the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial
Park in August, 2017. According to the report, no features were identified and the depositional
conditions suggest a low probability for any sealed/intact deposits, if they existed. The Beallmont
house (Site 31DV750/1DV750**) was recommended not eligible for the National Register. The
NCSHPO responded following a review of the Addendum of Archaeological Assessment of
Beallmont House Footprint in a letter dated November 3, 2017. The NCSHPO letter response
indicates that they concur that Beallmont house is not eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places.
Based on the above assessments and correspondence from NCSHPO, completed on the 1-85
Industrial Park that contains the Project Area, it is our opinion that the Proposed Project will have
no adverse effect to cultural resources. Copies of the NCSHPO response letters dated September
22, 2014, July 21, 2016 and November 3, 2017 are attached. Due to the size and length, copies

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
of the Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey and the Addendum of Archaeological Assessment
of Beallmont House Footprint are not included as attachments, but can be provided separately
upon request.
3.9 Biological Resources/Endangered Species
PEI previously completed a Preliminary Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment for the
1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park, which contains the Project Area. According to the report
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) List of Federally Protected Threatened and Endangered
Species for Davidson County, dated November 6, 2017, the following federally protected species
could be located within the Project Area.
Common Name Scientific name Federal Record Status
Status
Vertebrate: i I
Bald eagleHaliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA Current
Northern long-eared ba 1Myotis septentrionalis I 0 Current
Vascular Plant:
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii I 0 Fcurrent
E — Endangered T—Threatened BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
During completion of the Preliminary Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment, PEI
submitted a letter and subsequent electronic mail (e-mail) to the USFWS to solicit comments and
concurrence from USFWS that the development of the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park
would not adversely affect federally protected species. The USFWS responded to our request in
a letter dated October 21, 2015 and an email dated October 28, 2015. The USFWS responses
indicate that the USFWS concurs with our opinion that the proposed action of development of
the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park is not likely to adversely affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species and that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the Act have
been satisfied for the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park. Copies of the USFWS letter dated
October 21, 2015 and e-mail dated October 28, 2015 are included within the attachments. Due
to the file size and length, a copy of the Preliminary Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessment, is not included within the attachments, but can be provided separately upon
request.
Environmental Resources Management Group Inc. (ERM) completed a Threatened & Endangered
Species Habitat Assessment dated June 9, 2017 on the larger 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial
Park, which contains the Project Area. According to the Threatened & Endangered Species
Habitat Assessment, suitable summer roosting habitat for Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) is
located on the larger 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park. However, the ERM report indicates
that the Applicant could remove trees anytime during the year based upon reliance on the NLEB

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
final 4(d) rule. Additionally, the ERM report documents that species of Schweinitz's sunflower
were not observed within the larger 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park during the ERM field
reconnaissance. A copy of the ERM Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat Assessment dated
June 9, 2017 is included within the attachments.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
4.0 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The construction of the Proposed Project Phase I, the area which contains impacts to WoUS, will
be completed within the following sequence:
Phase I
a. Installation of crush rock/stone access roads / construction entrance road from
Belmont Road
b. Install sediment basins and other sediment and erosion control devices. This
activity will include the construction of a permanent stormwater management
pond.
c. Begin grading, focusing on the administration & training facility building areas
first then working outward across the Project Area. Grading activities will work
around all WoUS until 404 and 401 authorizations are issued.
d. Begin construction of the administration and training facility buildings.
e. Continue site work construction — storm drainage, water, sewer, parking lots,
driveways, etc.
f. The sequence of construction for the manufacturing buildings has not been
determined, however, all Phase I buildings are expected to be completed by
2021.
Due to the scale and complexity of the Proposed Project, the sequence of construction for Phases
II and III has not yet been determined. The Applicant will obtain a N.C. Division of Water
Resources stormwater management plan prior to beginning construction. A Preliminary
Stormwater Management Plan to document the Applicant has upland area to construct a post
construction stormwater management device is included as an attachment. A stormwater
management plan will be submitted to the NCDEQ separate of this application. Additionally, the
Applicant is aware that industrial waste water treatment may also be required by NCDEQ.
The Applicant will obtain Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (i.e. Grading Plan) approval prior to
land disturbance activities occurring within the Project Area. During construction of each of the
phases of the project, erosion control measures will be utilized to minimize and prevent sediment
run-off into nearby down -gradient waters. Additionally, disturbed areas will be immediately re-
seeded following earth moving activities. Stockpiling excavated soils will be avoided where
possible. If temporary stock piling is necessary, it will be bermed with bales of hay and or covered
to prevent excessive run-off. Erosion control inspections will be routinely conducted by the
Applicant's contractor and scheduled with the Land Quality Section as necessary. All construction
efforts will be performed in accordance with design specifications prepared by the engineer and
approved by local and state regulating authorities.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The applicant has completed an extensive alternatives analysis to determine the most plausible
preferred alternative with minimal impact to the environment. The following alternatives
identify the applicant's needs, how alternatives to the proposed action affect those needs, any
major direct environmental consequences and discussion of practicality for each alternative
compared to the preferred alternative of developing the Project Area with the Proposed Facility.
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative was evaluated as an alternative to the proposed action. The No Build
Alternative does not meet the project's purpose and need or the Applicant's business model for
expansion within the North American market for wood based products. Furthermore, if the No
Build Alternative is selected, the local economy and nearby populace will not benefit from the
Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will have short term positive benefits to the local
economy and nearby populace by temporary employment during construction and an increase
in demand for associated goods and service. Long term benefit of the Proposed Project to the
local economy and nearby populace include the estimated creation of 770 employment
opportunities, anticipated increase in tax base and revenue and the overall anticipated increase
to existing and future industries that will provide raw materials or purchase finished products.
Therefore, the No Build Alternative is not a feasible alternative.
Off -Site Alternatives
The Applicant performed an extensive Off -Site AlternativesAnalysis to identify an off-site location
that would meet the Applicant's needs and specific siting criteria for expansion within the North
American market. The Applicant spent over two years compiling market information and
completing an analysis that included more than 50 off-site locations. As documented within the
attached Off -Site Alternatives Analysis, the Proposed Project best met the Applicant's needs and
specific siting criteria, while having minimal impact to WoUS and the environment.
Off -Site Alternative 1
Following selection of the Project Area, the Applicant continued to evaluate alternatives in
attempts to minimize impact to the environment and specifically impacts to WoUS by evaluation
of the potential purchase and utilization of the entirety of the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial
Park for development with the Proposed Facility. As documented within the Applicant's Off -Site
Alternative Analysis and Purpose and Need, production buildings and material storage layout are
imperative to the efficiency and long term success of manufacturing operations and production
capacities.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
The only other feasible design of the Proposed Facility within the overall 1-85 Industrial Park is to
shift the Proposed Facility to the east towards Belmont Road to the maximum extent possible
given zoning constraints. This layout results in total impacts to WoUS including 252 linear feet of
stream channel, 0.81 acres of wetlands and 0.76 acres of open water pond, which are significantly
greater than those proposed in the preferred alternative. The attached exhibit titled Off -Site
Alternative 1 depicts this layout and associated impacts to WoUS.
Additionally, the purchase of the overall 1-85 Industrial Park by the Applicant would result in
significant detrimental economic loss for the Applicant and the owner. Additional costs incurred
by the Applicant to purchase the entire 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park would be
approximately $10,000,000. However, of greater economic value and concern to the nearby
populace and Davidson County, the owner of the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park, is the
potential risk of not being able to market the remaining three lots which could result in the
following:
• Loss of capital investments estimated as much as $500,000,000
• Loss of property tax revenue of $2,700,000 per year
• Loss of the potential creation of 1,230 new employment possibilities
• Potential loss of funding from grants that may exceed $12,000,000
Other layouts of the Proposed Facility within the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park are not
possible given manufacturing, operational and logistic requirements of the Proposed Facility due
to the size of the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park. Other layouts and design options within
the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park result in necessary development improvements
occurring outside of the 1-85 Corporate Center Industrial Park, within areas not available for
Applicant/owner purchase or development.
On -Site Alternatives
On -Site Alternative 1— No Permit Alternative
The no permit alternative was evaluated as an alternative to the proposed action. If the no
permit alternative is selected, then the proposed development of the site for development would
be limited to avoid all impact to jurisdictional features. Based on the locations of jurisdictional
features, it is not possible to construct all project phases without impacts to WoUS. Construction
of the Proposed Facility without all project phases does not meet the Applicant's purpose and
need and is not conducive to further project expansion without potential greater impacts to
WoUS than the preferred alternative. Therefore, this alternative is not a feasible alternative and
was not considered further. The attached exhibit titled On -Site Alternative 1 depicts this layout
and absence of impacts to WoUS.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
On -Site Alternative 2
On -Site Alternative 2 attempts to avoid impacts to WoUS proposed within the preferred
alternative by shifting the Proposed Facility as far north as possible. However, due to layout
requirements of the Proposed Facility, significantly greater impacts to WoUS occur compared to
the preferred alternative. Additionally, proposed rail service is not possible due to proximity to
relocated overhead transmission line foundations and the energy provider's requirements.
Therefore, within this alternative, the Applicant's logistics are significantly less desirable than
within the preferred alternative. Therefore, this alternative was not considered feasible
compared to the preferred alternative. The attached exhibit titled On -Site Alternative 2 depicts
this layout and quantifies impacts to WoUS.
On -Site Alternative 3
On -Site Alternative 3 depicts an earlier site plan prior to the Applicant's recent purchase of
approximately 13 acres on the eastern portion of the Project Area. On -Site Alternative 3 results
in greater impacts to higher quality WoUS on the northern portion of the Project Area compared
to the preferred alternative. The impacts to the WoUS on the northern portion of the Project
Area are due to grading limits associated with Phase III of the Proposed Facility. Therefore, this
alternative was not considered feasible compared to the preferred alternative. The attached
exhibit titled On -Site Alternative 3 depicts this layout and quantifies impacts to WoUS.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
6.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS
Development of the Proposed Project will result in impacts to an open water pond, a stream and
wetlands. The unavoidable impacts to WoUS are included in Table 5:
The proposed project will permanently impact a cumulative total of 1.00 acres of open water
pond, 0.238 acres of wetlands and 49 linear feet of intermittent stream channel. Temporary
impacts are not proposed.
Table 5: Proposed WoUS Impacts
WoUS Type
Feature Identifier
Type of
Impact
Permanent
Impact
Temporary
Impact
Open Water
PX 1-43/PXA 1-12
Fill
1.00 Ac
0 Ac
Wetland
WXA 1-22
Fill
0.238 Ac
0 Ac
Stream
SX 1-4
Fill
49 LF
0 LF
The proposed project will permanently impact a cumulative total of 1.00 acres of open water
pond, 0.238 acres of wetlands and 49 linear feet of intermittent stream channel. Temporary
impacts are not proposed.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
7.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Based on the alternative's analysis completed by the applicant, the Proposed Project was
determined to be the preferred alternative and the least damaging to the environment while still
meeting the Applicant's purpose and need. Specifically, the recent purchase and addition of
approximately 13 acres to the eastern portion of the Project Area resulted in significantly less
impacts to WoUS located on the northern portion of the Project Area as a result of Phase III being
able to be shifted to the east and south within the Project Area.
The applicant has incorporated the use of retaining walls at significantly increased construction
costs in efforts to further minimize the impact to the environment and jurisdictional features. An
approximate 6.5 foot tall retaining wall is being proposed to avoid fill impact to Wetland WT 1-8.
The proposed retaining wall has shortened fill side slopes associated with the proposed rail spurs
and avoided impact to 0.363 acres of wetlands.
A second retaining wall is proposed within the area of proposed impacts to WoUS. The Applicant
evaluated attempting to avoid or minimize proposed impacts with increasing the height of this
wall. However, due to fill slopes within the overhead transmission line right-of-way being limited
to 4:1, the retaining wall would have to be at an approximate height of 35 to 40 feet to avoid
proposed impacts to a portion of the open water pond PX 1-43/PXA 1-12 and Stream SX 1-4.
Therefore, due to safety concerns associated with relative position of rail lines and construction
costs of the retaining wall compared to the impact to low quality WoUS, it was determined
through design techniques that the second retaining wall would be used for the purpose of
constructability and long-term maintenance ease and was not feasible to attempt to utilize for
avoidance and minimization of impacts to WoUS.
The sequence of construction has been designed to minimize areas of exposed/bare soils and
secondary impacts by siltation of downstream waters. During construction of the project, erosion
control devices will be routinely inspected and maintained to minimize the amount of sediment
loss from the Project to down -gradient WoUS. Disturbed areas will be re -seeded promptly, where
possible, to prevent future erosion and sediment runoff into down -gradient waters. Stockpiling
excavated soil will be avoided where possible. If temporary stockpiling is necessary, the
stockpiles be bermed and surrounded with silt fencing or other best management practices will
be used. Erosion control inspections will be routinely conducted by the Applicant's contractor
and scheduled with the Land Quality Section as necessary. All construction efforts will be
performed in accordance with design specifications prepared by the engineer and approved by
local and state regulating authorities.
There are approximately 834 linear feet of perennial stream channel, 90 linear feet of
intermittent steam channel, 2.906 acres of wetlands and 1.00 acres of open water pond located
within the Project Area. Impacts to 834 linear feet of perennial stream channel, 41 linear feet of
intermittent stream channel and 2.668 acres of wetlands have been avoided. The Proposed
Facility has been designed in a manner that allows for future expansion to incorporate future

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
technological advances and production lines without additional impacts to WoUS outside of
those proposed within this application. Additional impacts to WoUS beyond those that are
proposed in this project are not anticipated.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
8.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION
The applicant has attempted to avoid and minimize impacts where possible and will compensate
to the extent practicable, for the remaining unavoidable losses with mitigation. The applicant
proposes the following mitigation for the unavoidable impacts to WoUS:
Table
7 Mitigation Proposal
Impact
Type of
Proposed
Impact Amount
Required Credits
Feature
Impact
Mitigation Ratio
Wetland
Fill
1:1
0.238 Ac
0.24 Ac
WXA 1-22
The proposed Wetland WXA 1-22 has been classified as a low -quality wetland by NCWAM.
Furthermore, based upon site observations and provided documentation, it is the opinion of the
Applicant that the mitigation ratio for Wetland WXA 1-22 should not exceed a 1:1 ratio. At the
ratio proposed, the applicant will purchase 0.24 acres of wetland credits, which will exceed
mitigation credit requirements.
Mitigation is not proposed for impact to the open water pond PX 1-43/PXA 1-12 or the
intermittent stream SX 1-4. Previous impacts to streams associated with the 1-85 Davidson
Corporate Center Industrial Park sanitary sewer improvements (SAW -2017-02504) are 43 linear
feet. When considered cumulative with those proposed in this application, cumulative impact
totals are less than 150 linear feet of stream impact. Therefore, mitigation should not be required
for the Proposed Project's impact to Stream SX 1-4. However, it should be noted that Stream SX
1-4 is a low -quality stream feature as classified by NCSAM and documented within this
application.
The applicant proposes to compensate for impacts associated with the Proposed Project by
offering payment into the NCDEQ-Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Private mitigation
banks, within the watershed of the Proposed Project, did not have credits available at the time
of the Applicant's request. According to a November 29, 2017 letter issued by the NCDEQ-DMS,
the required mitigation credits are available. A copy of the letter is included as an attachment.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
9.0 REFERENCES
USGS Topographic Map, Southmont North Carolina Quadrangle dated 1987.
USGS Topographic Map, Lexington West North Carolina Quadrangle dated 1994.
USGS Topographic Map, Churchland, North Carolina Quadrangle dated 2003.
USGS Topographic Map, Salisbury, North Carolina Quadrangle dated 1987.
North Carolina Geological Survey Geologic Map of North Carolina dated 1985.
Forsyth County Hydric Soils List, provided by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey of
Guilford County, http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey of Davidson
County, Published 1994, Sheet 9.
Federal Emergency Management Act Flood Insurance Rate Map Numbers 3610670200K and
3710579200J.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory
Maps http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Listings in the National Register of Historic
Places Dated January 29, 2017, http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/NR-PDFs.html.
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Web GIS
Service http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, List of Threatened and Endangered Species in Guilford County, Dated
November 6, 2017 http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/guilford.html.

EGGER Wood Products
December 22, 2017
PEI Project 1595.1
10.0 ATTACHMENTS
Stream and Wetland Impact Exhibits — Overall & Exhibits A through C
NWP 12 Verification SAW -2017-02504 Dated May 22, 2017
NCDENR-DWR 401 WQC 20170130 Dated May 8, 2017
Davidson County Letter Dated December 15, 2017
Drawings 1 to 6:
Drawing 1— USGS Topographic Map
Drawing 2 — Soil Survey Map
Drawing 2A — Last Published Soil Survey Map
Drawing 3 — National Wetlands Inventory Map
Drawing 4 — FEMA FIRM Map
Drawing 5 — Project Area Delineation Map
Drawing 6 — NCSHPO Historic Properties Map
NCDEQ-DWR Letter Dated October 20, 2015
NCSAM Form Completed December 4, 2017
USACE Stream Assessment Form Completed December 4, 2017
NCDEQ-DWR Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11 Completed December 4, 2017
USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms Completed December 4, 2017
NCWAM Data Form Completed December 4, 2017
NCSHPO Letter Dated September 22, 2014
NCSHPO Letter Dated July 21, 2016
NCSHPO Letter Dated November 3, 2017
USFWS Letter Dated October 21, 2015
USFWS E-mail Dated October 28, 2015
ERM Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat Assessment Dated June 9, 2017
Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan
Off -Site Alternative's Analysis Dated December, 2017
Off -Site Alternative 1 Exhibit
On -Site Alternative 1 Exhibit
On -Site Alternative 2 Exhibit
On -Site Alternative 3 Exhibit
NCDEQ-DWR DMS Letter Dated November 29, 2017

PROPERTY LINE ACCESS ROAD
PHASE 3 BY OTHERS
i;
USACE/NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
.::i.�I
STREAMS AND WETLANDS
100 YR FLOODPLAIN
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
PROPERTY LINE
PHASE 1 & 2
0HP—OHP
O--P,roject phase I
® Project phase 11 (further investment)
D Project phase III (further investment)
'I— OHP—OHP—o--OHP—OHP'—OHP
USACE/NCDWR
JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER,
STREAM AND WETLANDS
SEE EXHIBIT
oNE
F/"//,1
OHP
—OHP, OHP
PROPERTY LINE
PHASE 1 & 2 ° °
USACE/NCDWR
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
SEE EXHIBIT B
USACE/NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL OPEN
WATER, STREAM AND WETLANDS
TOTAL IMPACTS
STREAM = 49 LF
WETLANDS = 0.24 ACRES
OPEN WATER = 1.0 ACRES
OHI
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
OVERALL WETLAND AND STREAM
IMPACT EXHIBIT
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
(.7 st i m m e l 601 N. WINSTON-SALEM
ET,NC SUITE 200
27101
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
www.stimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
SCALE: 1 " = 400'
400 0 400
North
NCBEES CERT. NO.: C-1347
CAR"
�.
SEAL �
2355214
T
I
USACE/NCDWR
/
j
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
SEE EXHIBIT
/
PROPERTY LINE ACCESS ROAD
PHASE 3 BY OTHERS
i;
USACE/NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
.::i.�I
STREAMS AND WETLANDS
100 YR FLOODPLAIN
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
PROPERTY LINE
PHASE 1 & 2
0HP—OHP
O--P,roject phase I
® Project phase 11 (further investment)
D Project phase III (further investment)
'I— OHP—OHP—o--OHP—OHP'—OHP
USACE/NCDWR
JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER,
STREAM AND WETLANDS
SEE EXHIBIT
oNE
F/"//,1
OHP
—OHP, OHP
PROPERTY LINE
PHASE 1 & 2 ° °
USACE/NCDWR
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
SEE EXHIBIT B
USACE/NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL OPEN
WATER, STREAM AND WETLANDS
TOTAL IMPACTS
STREAM = 49 LF
WETLANDS = 0.24 ACRES
OPEN WATER = 1.0 ACRES
OHI
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
OVERALL WETLAND AND STREAM
IMPACT EXHIBIT
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
(.7 st i m m e l 601 N. WINSTON-SALEM
ET,NC SUITE 200
27101
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
www.stimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
SCALE: 1 " = 400'
400 0 400
North
NCBEES CERT. NO.: C-1347
CAR"
�.
SEAL �
2355214
T

�,�7-61`1
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACT
EXHIBIT A
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
(.7 sti mmel 601 N. WINSTON-SALEM,
NC 27101
SUITE 200
WIN .slim SALEM, NC 27101
www.stimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
SCALE: 1 " = 80'
80 0 80
North
NCBEES CERT. NQ.: C•1347
CAF?,r��ttfllrrlll►T►
SEAL r:
23552 T

E -
�- moi• • • .
0 �DHP-•
USACE/NC
WETLAND
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC
12/12/17
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACT
EXHIBIT B
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
.'� sti m me I 601 N. TRADE STREET, 7101 200
WINSTON-SALEM, SALEM, NC 36.7
www.stimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
SCALE: 1 " = 80'
80 0 80
North
NCBEES CERT NO.: C-1347
.►t►►� u r r r r rryr
►��'\N . CAR 'r..
SEAL -
23552 -
�;�.: 12 -its irl:
VC I
Irr''ru►r►+++►''►�,

Vv I
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN (TYP)
PROPOSED
SUBSTATION \ \
USACE/NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL \ I 1 I \ \
WETLANDS -NOT IMPACTED
BFE=64�
/ \\ PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
/
\\� PROPOSED STORMWATER /
I I / / • \\� MANAGEMENT POND I
( 1
\ �• I�/ SII �I \ i
USACE/NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS -NOT IMPACTED
I m 1\
-�/ SOUTH POTTS CREEK \
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACT
EXHIBIT C
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
(.'� st i m me l 601 N. WINSTON-SALEM,
NC, 7101UITE 00
WIN .slim SALEM, NC 36.7
www.stimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
SCALE: 1 = 80'
DT 80 0 80
North
NCBEES CERT. NO.: C-1847
,'y 111111111f//
SEAL
. 23552 � 7 ice:
r 41 I2�IL
" [......
r�rrr C- .
llllll lll�l�■

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -201.7-02504 County: Davidson U.S.G.S, Quad: Lexington West
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Permittee: Davidson County -1-85 Business Park
Attn: Mr. Zeb Hanner, County Manager;
Address: Post Office Box 1067
Lexington, North Carolina 27293_
Telephone Number:
Size (acres) multiple properties along liner corridor Nearest Town: Lexington
Nearest Waterway Swearing Creek, N. Potts Creek;
Yadkin River River Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040103 Coordinates Latitude: 35.7630
Longitude: -80.3098
Location description: Proposed sewerline construction that parallels road, railroad rights-of-way, and established off-road
force main easements adjacent to agricultural fields, forested lands and residential developments, southwest of Lexington and
leading to the proposed Davidson County I-85 Business Park.
This nationwide permit verification is being finalized based upon the statement in the initial doeument dated January 25, 2016
based upon the statement on the first page "It is the consultant's understanding that the Business Park could be developed
without requiring permits, except for the required pump station and force main projects." Please be advised that this
verification for nationwide hermit authorization will not preclude "off-site" alternatives analyses in the event that any
jurisdictional impacts associated with the Business Park are no longer eligible for Nationwide Permit authorization, which
would be the case if permanent losses to streams is greater than 300 linear feet or total losses to waters of the US to include
wetlands exceeds 0.5 acre. Should this occur a Department of the Army standard permit would be required which would
involve the evaluation of off-site alternatives, which may or linay not be owned by the permittee/applicant.
Description of projects area and activity: The installation of sewer infrastructure, including gravity lines and_a pump station
with a permanent access road within the proposed I-85 Business Park and the installation of a sewer forcemain that connects
this proposed pump station to an existing um station north of 1-85. The project wouId impact a total of 0.84 acre of
jurisdictional wetlands i-esulting in the permanent conversion of 0.22 acre of wetlands and 584 linear feet of temporary stream
impacts, of which U linear feet would be permanent impacts associated -with access road construction.
Table 1: Wetland Impacts
2a,
2b,
2c,
2d.
2e.
2f,
PCNFeature
Impact
Site
O
figure*
On Pian
Sheet
Name
(PID)
PID
Temporary ar
Permanent
Type of impact
Type of Wetland
Forested
{Y/N)
Type of iurisdiction
Corps (404, 10) of
DWQ [401, other]
Area of
Impact
(acres)
W1
3.1-3.3
30-31
WB
Temporary
sewer line
Bultomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 4014
0.32
Wl
3.1-3.3
30-31
wo
Permanent
Conversion / Sewer tine
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
<0,01
W2
3.4
29
WE
Temporary
Sewer fine
Riparian PEM
No
Corps 404
0.02
W3
3.4
29
WF
Temporary
Sewer Sime
Riparian PEM
No
Corps 404
< 0.01
W4
3.5-3.6
28
WD
Temporary
sewer line
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
0.05
W4
3.5-3.6
28
WD
Permanent
Conversion / Sewer line
Rottornland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Cor s 404
0.09
W5
3.7
27
WN
Temporary
Sewer line
Riparian PEM
No
Corps 404
<0.01
W6
3.8
26
WI
Temporary
Sewer line
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
0.01
W6
3.8
26
WI
Permanent
Conversion /Sewer line
Bullorriland hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
<0.01
W7
3.9
24-25
WL
Temporary
Sewer line
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
0.06
W8
3.10
23
WM
Temporary
Sewer line
Roltomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
0.03
W8
3.10
23
WM
lflermaoent
Conversion / Sewer line
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
0.08
W9
3.11 1
21
WN
ITemporary
Sewer line
Non -Riparian PFM
No
Corps 404
0.06
W10
3.12
18
WP
Temporary
sewer line
Rottorriland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
<0.01
W10
3.12
18
WP
Permanent
Conversion/Sewer line
Rottornland?MrdwoodForest
Yes
Corps 404
<0.01
W11
3.14
17
Ditch A
Temporary
Sewer line
Non -Riparian PEM
No
Corps 404
<O.Ol
W12
3.15
17
Ditch R
Temporary
sewer line
Non -Riparian PEM
No
Corps 404
<0.011
W13
3.19
11
WQ
Pernrarsent
Access Rd and Conversion/
Sewer line
6ultomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
0.02
W14
3.19
11
WR
Temporary
Access Rd and sewer line
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
< 0.01
W15
3.2
11 1
WS
ITempurary
Access Rd and Sever tine
8ottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps 404
< 0.01
*; Feature labels on impart figures are wetland « aures from delineation. PCN Impact sites are numbered
sequentially from 1 through 15.
Permanent Impact
(Conversion)
Temporary Impact
Total Impact
0.22
1 0.62
0.84

Table 2: Stream Impacts
PCN
Impact
Site
S1
52
53
S4
55
S6
57
59
$10
510
_
3b.
3c,
3d,
3e,
3f,
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
stream
On figure
On Plan Sheet
Type of impact
Stream name
Intermittent (INT)
Jurisdiction
width (fee
w
3.i
31
sewer Line (T)
51
PER
Cars
h
4
3.3
30
sewer line (T)
52
PER
PEA
Corps
Corps
5
3 7
27
Sewer Line. 7)
S4
Sa
PER
Corps
2
3.10
23
Sewer Line (T)
Sewer Line (T)
510
PER
Corps
2PER
3.12
19-19
18
Sewer tine (T)
S12
Corps
3
3.13
3.16
16
Sewer tine (T)
513
INT
Carps
3
6
3.17
15
Sewer Line (T)
S14
PER
PER
Carps
Corps
4
3.18
1S
sewer Line (T)
S15
S1S
PER
Corps
5
319
11
Sewer Line (T)
516
PER
Corps
5
3.i9
i1
Access Rd (P)
Feature labels on impactfigures are stream names from delineation. PCN Impact sit0s are
numbered sequentially from 1 through 10.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Sections 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number or Nationwide Permit Number: 12
Impact
length
(linear feet)
37.
165
27
188
14
12
43
Temporary Impacts _ 541
Permanent impacts 43
Total Impacts 584
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted application and attached information dated January 25, 2017, April 4, 2017, and May 4, 2017.
Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work
order, a restoration order, a Class I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are
under construction) or are under contract to continence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required federal,
State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Mrs. Jean B. Gibb at 919 554-4884 Ext. 24 or Jean.B.Gibb usace.arm .mil.
Corps Regulatory Officia . Date: 27 May 2017
Expiration Date of Verificatioi : 18 March 2022

Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ® There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area 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). 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. Please note, if work is authorized by either a general or nationwide permit, and you wish to request an appeal of an
approved JD, the appeal must be received by the Corps and the appeal process concluded prior to the commencement of any work
in waters of the United States and prior to any work that could alter the hydrology of waters of the United States.
B. ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC §
1344). Unless there is a change hi 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.
C. ❑ There are waters, including wetlands, within the above described project area that are 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.
D. ❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please reference
jurisdictional determination issued . Action ID: SAW -
Basis For Determination: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination based upon the presence of
wetlands as defined in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and appropriate
supplements along with evidence of an ordinary high water marks on the stream channels as evidenced
by definitive bed and bank, absence of terrestrial vegetation, sediment sorting, etc.
Remarks:
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdiction determinations as indicated in B and
C above).
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdiction 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: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
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 _ _ , _
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**

Corps Regulatory Official:
Jean B. Gibby
Date of JD: 27 May 2017
Expiration Date of JD:
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
httl2://corpsmgpu.usace.qnny.mil/em a ex/t? =136:4:0.
Copy furnished: Chris Hopper/Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. via email

SAV -2015-02504
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
In order to compensate for impacts associated with this permit, mitigation shall be provided in
accordance with the provisions outlined on the most recent version of the attached
Compensatory Mitigation Responsibility Transfer Form. The requirements of this form,
including any special conditions listed on this form, are hereby incorporated as special
conditions of this permit authorization.

Action ID Number: SAW -201502504 County: Davidson
Permittee: Davidson County
Mr. Zeb Hanner
Project Name: 1-85 Business Park
Date Verification Issued: 27 May 2017
Project Manager: Jean B. Gibb
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Attn: Jean B. Gibby
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Ware Forest, NC 27587
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may
result in the Corps suspending, modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I
administrative penalty, or initiating other appropriate legal action.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

-
,„'�.�
e �.- ;a ��r �. � axe '�- ��x.�r"x�s� �''�� '= r.,�a•-�—.W 3�"�' s z4» c,�^�--:
�� r �,`�� �EQ�E�T�ORA-I?Pl+���� ��-��••�-=��>�..W..���.�.:
Applicant: Davidson Connty-I-85 Business Park file Number: SAW -2015-02504 Date: 27 May 2017
Mr. Zeb Hanner
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
® PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTXON I The followmg ldenttfies your
rights and options regarding an admttlslratue appeal of tI� above `cleciston
cidrttonalAnfarxrtattoi� ma h,e found at htC /Iwww Usace aitn rill/IVhssonsfCivrlorlslRe ulator Fro tamandPe�ii�tts as
Y.
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 pertnit, 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 lI of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections trust 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 11 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 .TURISDICTIONAL 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 1.I 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.
SECTTOI*I II__2EQI7EST 1j QR APPEAL off` OBJECTIONS TO AN, INITIAL
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.
PONT o cQNTAC`fORQUESTIONSOR 1NoRMATION _ . _ _ry
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, Attn:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
#PM FULLNAME#
CESAD-PDO
#PM_FIELD_OFFICE_ADDRESS#
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room IOM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
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 opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: #PM_Ft1LLNAME#, 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. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, ChSAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

Water .Rescmi-ces
Environmental (, uality
May 8, 2017
ROY COOPER
Coverwr
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretat},
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DWR # 20170130
Davidson County
Davidson County
Attn: Mr. Zeb Hanner, County Manager
PO Box 1067
Lexington NC 27293
Subject: APPROVAL OF 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
1-85 Business Park Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Dear Mr. Hanner:
You have our approval for the impacts listed below for the purpose described in your application dated
January 10, 2017, received by the Division of Water Resources (Division) January 26, 2017, with subsequent
information on April 7, 2017 and May 4, 2017. These impacts are covered by the attached Water Quality
General Certification Number 4086 and the conditions listed below. This certification is associated with the
use of Nationwide Permit Number 12 once it is issued to you by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please
note that you should get any other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project,
including those required by (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water
Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the enclosed certification(s) or general permit
and the following additional conditions:
1. The following impacts are hereby approved provided that all of the other specific and general
conditions of the Certification are met. No other impacts are approved, including incidental
impacts. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b) and/or (c)]
Type of Impact
Amount Approved (units)
Permanent
Amount Approved (units)
Temporary
Stream
S1
0 (linear feet)
36 (linear feet)
S2
0 (linear feet)
32 (linear feet)
S3
0 (linear feet)
0 (linear feet)
S4
0 (linear feet)
27 (linear feet)
S5
0 (linear feet)
188 (linear feet)
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]•

Davidson County
DWR# 20170130
401APPROVAL
Page 2 of 4
S6
0 (linear feet)
14 (linear feet)
S7
0 (linear feet)
21 (linear feet)
S8
0 (linear feet)
21 (linear feet)
S9
0 (linear feet)
25 (linear feet)
S10
0 (linear feet)
12 (linear feet)
S10
43 (1i near feet)
0 (linear feet)
404/401 Wetlands
W1
<0.01 (acres)
0.32 (acres)
W2
0.02 (acres)
0 (acres)
W3
<0.01 (acres)
0 (acres)
W4
0.05 (acres)
0.09 (acres)
W5
<0.01 (acres)
0 (acres)
W6
<0.01 (acres)
<0.01 (acres)
W7
0.06 (acres)
0 (acres)
W8
0.03 (acres)
0.08 (acres)
W9
0.06 (acres)
0 (acres)
W10
<0.01 (acres)
<0.01 (acres)
W11
<0.01 (acres)
0 (acres)
W12
<0.01 (acres)
0 (acres)
W13
0 (acres)
0.02 (acres)
W14
<0.01 (acres)
0 (acres)
W15
<0.01 (acres)
0 (acres)
2. This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application. The plans and
specifications for this project are incorporated by reference as part of the Certification. If you
change your project, you must notify the Division and you may be required to submit a new
application package with the appropriate fee. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given
a copy of this approval letter and General Certification(s)/Permit/Authorization and is responsible
for complying with all conditions. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)(2)]
Stream S4 within the Right of Way from Station 169+00 and 170+10 shall be clearly marked with
orange fabric fencing or orange silt fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. The fencing must
be maintained on the property until the construction in the adjacent area is completed. [15A NCAC
02H .0506 (b)(2) and (c)(2) and 15A NCAC 02H .0507 (c)]
4. The Permittee shall conduct a pump around of Stream S10 from station 67+00 to 70+00 while
construction work is occurring within this area. Prior to discontinuing the pump around the
Permittee or their designee shall inspect the channel for any incidental impacts or sediment
deposits and shall develop and implement a restoration plan if any impacts from construction or
sediment loss have occurred. [15A NCAC 02H .0507 (c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0502 (e)]

Davidson County
DW R# 20170130
401 APPROVAL
Page 3 of 4
5. Any additional impacts to streams and/or wetlands as a result of future roads, buildings, driveways,
utility lines or other development related activities within the 1-85 Business Park will require a
modification of this 401 Water Quality Certification approval and any additional impacts may be
considered cumulative with these impacts. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(4) and 15A NCAC 02H .0501 and
.0502]
This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. [G.S. 143-215.5]
This Certification can be contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General Statute 150B by filing a written
petition for an administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereby known as OAH) within
sixty (60) calendar days.
A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at http:/Iwww.ncoah.com/```or by calling the OAH Clerk's Office
at [phone] for information. A petition is considered filed when the original and one (1) copy along
with any applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal office hours (Monday through Friday
between 8:00am and 5:00pm, excluding official state holidays).
The petition may be faxed to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one copy of the petition
along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within five (5) business days following the
faxed transmission.
Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service: If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center 1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714 Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also. be served to DEQ:
William F. Lane, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

Davidson County
DWR# 20170130
401APPROVAL
Page 4 of 4
This letter completes the review of the Division under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Please contact
Sue Homewood at 336-776-9693 or [e-mail] if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Sherri V. Knight, P. E.
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ— WSRO
Enclosures: GC 4086
cc: Chris Hopper, Carolina Ecosystems Inc. (via email)
Jean Gibby, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (via email)
DWR WSRO 401 file
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit file

s � •
DAVIDSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Post Office Box 1067
Lexington, North Carolina 27293
[phone]
STEVE SHELL, CHAIRMAN ZEB M. HANNER
TODD YATES, VICE-CHAIRMAN COUNTY MANAGER
LANCE BARRETT
ZAK CROTTS
STEVE JARVIS
FRED D. MCCLURE
DON W.TRUELL
December 15, 2017
Reference: Davidson County 1-85 Corporate Park
Belmont Road
Linwood, Davidson County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to briefly summarize the history of the Davidson County 1-85 Corporate Park, located
on Belmont Road in Linwood, Davidson County, North Carolina. Since the mid to late 1990s, the Davidson County
Economic Development Commission Inc. (EDC), Davidson County and the City of Lexington have facilitated the
development of the 1-85 Corporate Park. The following is a brief summary of the history of the Corporate Center:
• 2005 — Davidson County EDC comes to agreement with landowner for proposed industrial park
• 2005 — Davidson County EDC and the State of North Carolina complete preliminary environmental
and geotechnical engineering
• May 2014 Davidson County EDC purchases first parcel for proposed industrial park (Beallgray Farm,
LLC)
• August 2014 — Davidson County EDC have EDS and Pilot Environmental to complete a Phase I study
on the tracts
• August 2014 — Davidson County EDC has Anderson complete a shot for topography for the tracts
• 2012 to 2016 — Multiple grants and loans sourced to acquire land and extend the necessary
infrastructure to develop Phase I of the 1-85 Corporate Center
• 2014 — 2015 Offers to Purchase and purchases of property by Davidson County are as follows:
Name Offer to Purchase Purchase Date Ac
Beallmont Farm
11-13-2014
4-8-2015
116.75
Belmont Boys Club
10-13-2014
1-30-2015
55.216
Christina Steed
10-11-2014
4-8-2015
32.4
Beallgray Farm, Inc.
10-16-2014
1-15-2015
126.143
Davidson Co. EDC to Davidson County
2-9-2015
88.20 & 11.80

December 15, 2017
Page 2
• November 2014 — Davidson County issues requests for proposals for design of sewer utilities &
awards design contract for sewer pump station and forcemain
• August 2015 — Davidson County contracts with environmental consultant to complete wetland
delineation and obtain a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination for industrial
park
• September 2015 — The City of Lexington determines method for providing sanitary sewer service to
the industrial park
• February 2016 — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination issued for industrial park
• January 2017 — Davidson County submits Pre -Construction Notification for Nationwide Permit 12 to
provide sewer services to industrial park
• April 25, 2017 — Board of Commissioners takes official action naming industrial park 1-85 Corporate
Center"
• May 2017 — Davidson County receives Nationwide Permit 12 Verification and North Carolina
Division of Water Resources 401 Water Quality Certification
• May 2017 — Davidson County EDC notified it is one of three remaining finalists sites under
consideration for Project Columbus (Egger Wood Products)
• June 2017 — Davidson County bids construction of sewer line
• July 2017 — Davidson County enters contract to sell a portion of Corporate Center to Egger Wood
Products, LLC
• September 2017 — Davidson County begins construction of sewer line
• October 24, 2017 — Board of Commissioners takes official action naming roadway into Corporate
Center "Egger Parkway"
• The utility infrastructure alignment was developed through multi -disciplinary discussions related to
the feasibility and cost of providing service to the subject site. The EDC, City, and County along with
their consultants informally evaluated several potential alternatives including:
• A smaller pump station/forcemain on-site to 'serve the site'. This alternative was discounted since
it would not have capacity to serve ultimate site build -out.
• A shorter forcemain length to existing City of Lexington sewer which is closer to the site. This
alternative was discounted since it would require costly upgrades and expansion to the existing
system that would not currently be able to accept flows from the site.
• A pump station/forcemain to transfer to Rowan County. This alternative was discounted due to
cost of new easements and costs/impacts of a major crossing of Yadkin River.
• The current corridor using existing easements to provide service to the site from the closest sewer
system that could adequately handle the sites project capacity. This corridor was chosen to develop
further as it minimized cost of new easements and environmental impacts by overlapping with
existing road and utility corridors as much as possible.
DMP/Carolina Ecosystems were retained in late -2014 to provide design for sewer improvements along the chosen
corridor. The City of Lexington Engineering Department had previously prepared (for the EDC) a conceptual
plan/alignment for providing sewer service to the Corporate Center based on the informal evaluation of
alternatives discussed above. This concept plan was utilized as the basis of design/project scope for the current
design. During preliminary planning/design, the alignment was refined in order to minimize environment impacts —
methods included utilizing existing road right-of-way and existing utility easements to the maximum extent
practical, adjust alignments for efficient wetland/stream crossings, and evaluating areas where trenchless
technologies were practical.

December 15, 2017
Page 3
Multiple agents from the US Army Corps of Engineers were involved in the review of the utility corridor and a
Nationwide Permit was issued, documenting that the utility corridor impacts had minimal impact on Clean Water
Act resources and did not require a more detailed justification or review of alternative alignments.
As documented above and within correspondence associated with and following the January, 2017 Pre -
Construction Notification, Davidson County, the City of Lexington or Davidson County EDC were not aware of
additional future impacts to Waters of the U.S. associated with the Egger Wood Products, LLC development or
other potential development within the overall Davidson County 1-85 Corporate Center.
Sincerely,
ZebLk Hanner
County Manager
Davidson County

Drawing 1
USGS Topographic Map �� w
Southmont, Lexington West, Salisbury-..-
and
alisbury- and Churchland, NC Quadrangles PILOT
Scale: 1" = 2,000, P I L 0 7 E N V I R 0 N M E N T A L. I N C
I
5'
-x fr
LEGEND !
-_ Site Boundary
USGS Topographic Map
1-85 Cooperate Park
Approximate 238 Acre Tract
Davidson County, NC
Pilot Project 1595.1

Drawing 2
USDA Web Soil Survey
of Davidson County NC
Scale: 1" = 600'
PILOT -
P I L O T E N V I R 0 N M E N T A L. I N C
Web Soil Map
1-85 Cooperate Park
Approximate 238 Acre Tract
Davidson County, NC
Pilot Project 1595.1

V U
CCD
Me$
Iffi
' r
�Y
,I r
Drawing 2A��
USDA Soil Survey
of Davidson County, NC v -`
Published 1994, Sheet 4 PILOT
11
Not to Scale PILOT ENVIR0NMENTAL.INC
f,J
LEGEND
Site Boundary
Published Soil Map
1-85 Cooperate Park
Approximate 238 Acre Tract
Davidson County, NC
Pilot Project 1595.1

Drawing 3
USFWS NWI
Wetlands Mapper
Scale: 1" = 600'
1:j
0
vr"
i
1 �ILOI W AM
P I L O T E N V I R 0 N M E N T A L. I N C
O
1.1�
LEGEND
Site Boundary
Freshwater Emergent
Freshwater Forested/Shrub
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine
Freshwater Pond
La ke
Riverine
1 Other
NWI Map
1-85 Cooperate Park
Approximate 238 Acre Tract
Davidson County, NC
Pilot Project 1595.1

1-
r
M
�r
T10 0 OOE AREA OF MINIM A- FL OD HA RD z-~
0,PANEL
f-
R
009 eff- 6116/2009
f
fix�. LEGEND
Site Boundary
1
'Annual Chance Flood liazarci
F' t gulatory Floodvay
_
Sped @I Floodway
r Area of Undetermined Flood Hazam
0 2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Faure Conditions 1 %Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced F isk Due to Levee
N
FEMA FIRM
Drawing 4 1-85 Cooperate Park
National Flood Hazard Layer
From FEMA Web Map Service a -= - Approximate 238 Acre Tract
- 600' PLOT Davidson County, NC
Scale: 1"
- PILOT ENVIR0NMEWTAL.INC Pilot Project 1595.1

WAA 1-184
(1.857 ac)
WA 48-287
(0.448 ac)
OR �c 111
SAB 1-35
(670 Lf) N -
PX 1-43 /
PXA 1-12
(1.00 ac)
r
Non -Jurisdictional
Upland Pond
WXA 1-22
/ (0.238 ac) WT 1-8
(0.363 ac)
\S 01-4
Lf)
LEGEND
Site Boundary
4 Jurisdictional Pond
...... Intermittent Stream
r
Perennial Stream
Wetland
Flag Number
}� r
'� { DP -1 Data Point
'HE LOCATIONS OF FEATURES SHOWN HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE (JD SAW -2015-02177). THIS EXHIBIT INCLUDES GPS LOCATIONS
URISIDICTIONAL FEATURES.
Drawing 5 s � Project Area Delineation Map
Aerial Imagery from ESRI 1-85 Cooperate Park
and GPS Data - Approximate 238 Acre Tract
Scale: 1" = 600' p�f®�1r 1' Davidson County, NC
Date: 11.28.17 PILOT ENVIROMMENTALINC Pilot Project 1595.1

�k n�" IAO�-
r�
C'VDDD7 BE911marrt 1954
f �• 5'-
}�. f ,tea
1C _e
Drawing 6
NCSHPO — HPO GIS Data Layer.
Scale: 1" = 1,000' PILOT
P 1 L O T E N V I R 0 N M E N T A L. I N C
LEGEND
Site Boundary
❑ National Register Boundary
❑ Study List Boundary
Surveyed Only
NCSHPO —HPO Map
1-85 Cooperate Park
Approximate 238 Acre Tract
Davidson County, NC
Pilot Project 1595.1

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
October 20, 2015
Mr. Michael Brame
Pilot Environmental Inc.
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
Subject: Request for NCDEQ Letter - Non -jurisdictional Pond/Constructed in Uplands
Approximate 424 Acre Site
1-85 Corporate Park
Davidson County, North Carolina
PEI Project No. 1595
Dear Mr. Brame:
I am in receipt of your letter dated October 19, 2015 regarding the above noted project. In
accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .1301(e):
"The following are exempt from this Section: (2) Discharges to isolated, man-made ponds
or isolated ditches except for those wetlands or waters constructed for compensatory
mitigation or for on-site stormwater management;"
If you need further information or assistance please contact me at 333-776-9693 or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Sue Homewood
Winston-Salem Regional Office

user manuai version L. -i
USACE AID #:
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): Proposed Egger Wood Products 2. Date of evaluation: December 4, 2017
3. Applicantlowner name: Egger Wood Products, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Luckey, Pilot
5. County: Davidson 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin-PeeDee on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: South Prong Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.737473/-80.342848
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SX 1-4 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 90'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5' r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 34' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? f Yes f No
14. Feature type: r Perennial flow • Intermittent flow f Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: f Mountains (M) f• Piedmont (P) f Inner Coastal Plain (I) r Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L
valley shape (skip for f• b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip C' Size 1 (< 0.1 mi`) t: Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi`) C Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) C Size 4 (>- 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? C• Yes C No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
F Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( C I r II C III r Iv r V)
F Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
F Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r 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):
Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? Yes • No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
C A Water throughout assessment reach.
C 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).
C B Not A
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 A
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).
r 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
C A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
C• B C+` 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 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)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F_ G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r 1 Other. (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather -watershed metric
For Size 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
drought.
r` A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r B Drou ght conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
ro C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
r Yes [o No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. (- 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)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m N r F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B MWltiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o � r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation y L o r l Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r m r J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O 2 r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
`******"**"***""****'"'**********REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS*******************"*******
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ila.( -Yes r•` No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
I i b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
i✓ A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
F B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In 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.
NP R C A P
P r r r r Bedrock/saprolite
P r r r r Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
P r r r r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r i+ r r r Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
r r t+ r r Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
r r r i+ r Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
r i+ r r r Detritus
r i+ r r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. r Yes r No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. r~ Yes 6- No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. r• No Water r Other:
12b. r~ Yes 6- 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.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa' for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
F r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
F r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrim p)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
F r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
F_ r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )

F r Other fish
F r Salamanders/tadpoles
F r Snails
F r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F r Tipulid larvae
F r 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
r A C A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
r B C B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
r 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
r 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
r 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
r Y C Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
r• N r+` 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.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
P, B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
P, 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)
F C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
F D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F 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.
r• A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
r Degraded (example: scattered trees)
r 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
r• A r+` A r• A t+ A i 100 -feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
r B C B r B r B From 50 to < 100 -feet wide
r C C C r C C C From 30 to < 50 -feet wide
C D C D C D C D From 10 to < 30 -feet wide
r E C E r 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
r• A r• A Mature forest
r r Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
r C r C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
C D C D Maintained shrubs
r r 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: r
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
G A C A r• A r+` A r C A Row crops
❑ B C B C B C B C B C B Maintained turf
❑ C C C C C C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑ D C D C D C D C D C 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
f• A f• A
Medium to high stem density
r B r 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 The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
r C r 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 r 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.
r• B r•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.
r C r 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 r• No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r• No Water r Other:
251b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r <46 r B 46 to < 67 r C 67 to < 79 r D 79 to < 230 r E >- 230

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Proposed Egger Wood Products
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)
Date of Evaluation December 4, 2017
Assessor Name/Organization Luckey, Pilot
K n
YES
Kir)
�FST,T :n:TFis
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
LOW
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
LOW
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
LOW
HIGH

USACE AID#
DWQ#,
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Egger Wood Products, LLC 2. Evaluator's name: Luckey, Pilot
3. Date of evaluation: December 4, 2017 4. Time of evaluation: 13:24
5. Name of stream: SX 1-4 6. River basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate drainage area: 80 Acres 8. Stream order: 1St
9. Length of reach evaluated: 90' 10. County: Davidson
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.737473 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -80.342848
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See Attached
Maps Stream SX 1-4
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Fill
15. Recent weather conditions: Tvnical
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Typical
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area: 1.002 Acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential <1 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 70 % Agricultural
20% Forested 0 % Cleared / Logged 2 % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3-4' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 34 Comments: Intermittent
Evaluator's Signature 12.4.17 Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
1
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = maxpoints)
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
0
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
x
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
1
p-
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding= max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition-- 0• little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
2
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
F-
13
13
of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
a
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
F-,
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
15
substantial impact =0• no evidence =max oints
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = maxpoints)
x
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
20
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
Q
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = maxpoints)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
34
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 12/4/17
Project/Site: Egger - Stream SX
Latitude:
Evaluator: Luckey, PEI
County: Davidson
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is least intermittent 20
Stream Deter circle one)
Other
at
Ephemeral Qntermitten Perennial
e.g. quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
2)
I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 11.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2)
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
Op
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
CD
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
COD
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 4.5 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
OO 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
Cp 0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
3
YesED
1
C. Biolociv (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
CD
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3)
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
CD
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other 7F
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: NCDWR #:
Project Name Proposed Egger Wood Products Date of Evaluation 4 December 2017
Applicant/Owner Name Egger Wood Products, LLC Wetland Site Name WXA 1-22
Wetland Type Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh Assessor Name/Organization Brame, Pilot
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Prong Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 0304010301
County Davidson NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
iC'Yes � * No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.740721/-80.342199
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? i`" Yes i* No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? 47 Yes i`" No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area
F_ Anadromous fish
r- Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
r- NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
r- Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F- 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)
" Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) `" Lunar i`" Wind `" Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? :` Yes i * No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C Yes ii No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? 1: Yes C 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 r A Not severely altered
ii B i:: 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)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A f A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B f-9 B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
f- C f 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).
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. i-* A r*" A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
f- B f" B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
f C r" C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
f- D r" D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. f- Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet

B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. i`" A Sandy soil
is B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
f- C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
f- D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
f- E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. CA Soil ribbon < 1 inch
t: B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. t: A No peat or muck presence
f 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 (-e 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 [" 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)
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 A F A F A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B F B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F C F C F C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
Rl D r--' D Rl D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
Rl E r--' E Rl E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F F F F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G F G F 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.
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?
i+ Yes i 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.)
, 0_ A >_ 50 feet
i` B From 30 to < 50 feet
i C From 15 to < 30 feet
i` D From 5 to < 15 feet
i` 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 i` > 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?
,:: Yes i No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
, 0- Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
i` Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
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 (" B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
" D (" D From 40 to < 50 feet
" E (" E From 30 to < 40 feet
" F (" F From 15 to < 30 feet
" G (" G From 5 to < 15 feet
" H (" H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
C B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
[` B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
C A C A A >: 500 acres
B f- B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C f- C" C From 50 to < 100 acres
D f- D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E f- E" E From 10 to < 25 acres
" F f- F" F From 5 to < 10 acres
+` G G" G From 1 to < 5 acres
H f- H" H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I f- I {" I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J f- 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)
i` A Pocosin is the full extent (>: 90%) of its natural landscape size.
i` 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
is A C A >: 500 acres
is B B From 100 to < 500 acres
is C C From 50 to < 100 acres
is D D From 10 to < 50 acres
is E E < 10 acres
F: F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
i`: Yes ; No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. 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
(*-B 1 to
CC 5to8
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)
C 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 C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure - assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes 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.
f: A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
i 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.
(* C
AA
WT
( A
E
(—A
A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
(" C
C B
(-` B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
CU
U
M C
(* C
Canopy sparse or absent
o
(" A
(- A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
(- B
(` B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
-o
(+` C.`
C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
�0 (-'A (--A Dense shrub layer
(— B
(t B
Moderate density shrub layer
0 (* C
(* C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 (` A
( A
Dense herb layer
(+` B
(: B
Moderate density herb layer
(" C
("` C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
i- B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
( A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion - wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
i`A ;4B t C D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity- assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
( B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
(' C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
(+' D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
WXA 1-22
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Rating Summary
4 December 2017
Brame, Pilot
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Proposed Egger Wood Products City/County: Linwood/Davidson Sampling Date: 12/4/17
Applicant/Owner: Egger Wood Products, LLC State: North Carolina Sampling Point: DP -1
Investigator(s): Luckey/Brame, Pilot Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Slope (%): 2 Lat: 35.73894 Long: -80.34279 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents, loamy (Ud) NWI Classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
5UMMARY OF FINUING5 — Attacn site map snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important teatures, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Vegetation is impacted due to agronomic production and routine mowing
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)_
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _
Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Saturation Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches): Surface
_
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. None Observed
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. Salix nigra 2 Y OBL
2. Ligustrum sinense 2 Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point DP -1
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
4
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
1. Juncus effuses
10
Y
FACW
2. Microstegium vimineum
30
Y
FAC
3. Andropogon virginicus
10
N
FAC
4. Smilax rotundifolia
5
N
FAC
5. Rubus argutus
5
N
FAC
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
60
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. None Observed
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point DP -1
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
ydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
3 Prevalence Test is <_ 3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
X2=
FAC species
X3=
FACU species
X4=
UPL species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
ydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
3 Prevalence Test is <_ 3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LoP Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 3/2 100
CL
4-18 10YR 4/2 80
7.5YR 5/8 10 C M
CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced
Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Suface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Iron Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (s4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3lndicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
Stripped Matrix (S6)
disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Proposed Egger Wood Products City/County: Linwood/Davidson Sampling Date: 12/4/17
Applicant/Owner: Egger Wood Products, LLC State: North Carolina Sampling Point: DP -2
Investigator(s): Luckey/Brame, Pilot Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Sideslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Slope (%): 2 Lat: 35.73904 Long: -80.34259 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents, loamy (Ud) NWI Classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
5UMMARY OF FINUING5 — Attacn site map snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important teatures, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Vegetation is impacted by agronomic production and routine mowing
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _
Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Saturation Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches):
_
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point DP -2
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
30' )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
None Observed
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
2.
3.
4
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
5.
6
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
7.
8.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size:
30' )
FACW species X2=
1.
None Observed
FAC species 4 X3= 12
FACU species 19 X4= 76
2.
3
UPL species X5=
Column Totals: 24 (A) 88 (B)
4
5.
6.
7.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.66
8.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
9•
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
10.
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
= Total Cover
3 Prevalence Test is <_ 3.0'
Herb
Stratum(Plot size:
30' )
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1.
Schedonorus arundinaceus
10
Y FACU
_Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2. Schedonorus pratensis 5 Y FACU
3. Allium canadensis 2 N FACU
4.
Eupatrium capillifolium
2
N FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
Andropogon virginicus
2
N FAC
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
6. Phytolacca Americana 2 N FACU
7.
8.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
9.
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
10.
regardless of height.
11.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
12.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
23
= Total Cover
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
30' )
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
1.
None Observed
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LoP Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/2 100
CL
3-18 7.5YR 5/6 100
CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced
Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Suface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Iron Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (s4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3lndicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
Stripped Matrix (S6)
disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

btu. STATE,,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
September 22, 2014
Tina M. Stewart
ECS Carolinas, LLP
4811 Koger Boulevard
Greensboro, NC 27407
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Develop I-85 Business Park, Between I-85 & Norfolk Southern Railroad, Linwood, Davidson County,
ER 14-1900
Dear Ms. Stewart:
Thank you for your letter of August 13, 2014 requesting our review of your proposed NC Department of
Commerce certified site. We have conducted a review of our maps and files and offer the following
comments.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Due
to the topographic and hydrologic features within the project area, there is a high probability for the presence
of Native American and historic archaeological resources that may be affected by future development of the
parcel.
We recommend that a reconnaissance level survey of the parcel be conducted by an experienced archaeologist.
The purpose of this investigation is to identify archaeological remains that may be readily apparent and to
evaluate the potential for archaeological sites that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places. If archaeological sites are found on the parcel and/or if it is determined that the potential for
eligible sites exists, additional archaeological investigations may be recommended at such time as development
activities are proposed.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are submitted by the consulting
archaeologist. A letter will be sent to you for submission to the NC Department of Commerce Certified Site
Program for final certification.
Staff archaeologists at the Office of State Archaeology are available to assist you in the development of a
Request for Proposals (RFP) and a Scope of Work (SOW) for the reconnaissance survey. Please visit their web
site at www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov for the appropriate staff archaeologist.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/resource/consultants.htm. The archaeologists
listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

The HPOGIS htW://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/ demonstrates the National Register -listed Beallmont House
(DV0007) is located within the project APE. Further, the owner of the historic property has been in contact
with members of our staff, who are scheduled to visit the property. We are unaware of any desires the property
owners may have regarding de -listing the property. One may not simply delist a property minus extensive
review by state and federal agencies.
Given the presence of the National Register -listed Beallmont House, the proposed undertaking will result in an
adverse effect on the property and requires further consultation with all the parties under Section 106.
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 renee.g
a,ledhill-
earle : ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
6rRamona M. Bartos
cc: Susan Fleetwood,NC Department of Commerce
Cliff Pickett, cl2ickettklexcominc.net
David Thigpen, USDA, david.thigpenknc.usda.gov
Clearinghouse

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
July 21, 2016
Zeb M. Hanner
Davidson County Board of Commissioners
PO Box 1067
Lexington, NC 27293
Re: Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey, Proposed I-85 Business Park, Davidson County,
ER 14-1900
Dear Mr. Hanner:
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2016, transmitting the above referenced report.
During the course of the survey, seven newly identified archaeological sites (3 1 DV750&750** [i.e.,
Beallmont House] through 31DV756), were identified during the field investigations and are recommended
as not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). We concur with this
recommendation. The report authors also note that if sealed/discrete archaeological features are discovered
during the removal and relocation of the Beallmont House additional archaeological investigations may be
necessary. We also concur with this recommendation.
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(a�,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
60e 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

o -sr. STA7� o
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona A1. Bums, Admuiistrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi 11. 1 familton
November 3, 2017
Debbie Harris
Clerk to the Board
Davidson County Government
P.O. Box 1067
Lexington, NC 27293
Office of Arcliives and E listory
L)vpun, Secretary Kevin Cherr}
[e-mail]
Re: Archaeological assessment of the Beallmont House Footprint (31DV750&750**),
Addendum, Davidson County, ER 14-1900
Dear Ms. Harris:
Thank you for your letter of October 24, 2017, transmitting the archaeological report for the project noted
above. We have reviewed this report and offer the following comments.
We concur with the report author's assessment of a low probability for any sealed/intact deposits at Site
31DV750&750**. We concur the site is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places.
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 919-807-6579 or
enviromnental.review a,neder.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
r
aRamona Bartos
cc: Shawn Patch, New South & Associates, Inc. s atch newsouthassoc.com
Location: 110 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Nlail Service Csnter, Raleigh N(; 27699-4617 `telephone/Pax: (419) Si)7-6570/807-6599

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ashevillc Ficid Office
160 %iIlicm Sircet
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
October 21, 2015
Mr. Bradley Luckey
Project Manager
Pilot Environmental Inc.
P.O. Box 128
Kernersville, North Carolina 27285
Dear Mr. Luckey:
Subject: Listed Species Assessment, Proposed Industrial Development near 1-85 and NC 47,
Davidson County, North Carolina
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received your letter sent by email dated September 28,
20 15, requesting information concerning the possible presence of federally protected species or
associated habitats at a proposed industrial development. We have reviewed the information
provided, which included a brief project description, environmental assessment, and aerial
photography of the proposed project. The following comments are provided in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Art, as amended (16 U.S.C. 561-567e); the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251
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 in your letter, your client is proposing to construct an
industrial development on an approximately 415 -acre parcel of land south of the intersection of 1-85
and NC 47. The site is composed primarily of pasture/hay lands composed of fescueliye, but
portions are also wooded or have been timbered within the past 2 years. Wooded lands on the tract
are composed of mixed hardwoods, approximately 4 to 30 inches dbh, and dense to moderately dense
understories are dominated by nonnative vegetation (i.e., Chinese privet, autumn olive, etc.)
Single-family residences and outbuildings are located on the site. Two unnamed tributaries of North
Potts Creek, two unnamed tributaries of South Potts Creek, and several wetlands occur on the tract.
The surrounding land is primarily wooded but also contains developed open space, residential
development, and successional scrub/shrub habitats.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
You identified suitable summer maternity roosting habitat for the northern long-eared bat on the site.
However, you maintain that suitable summer roosting habitat is primarily located in areas that will be

avoided by development activities (i.e., wetlands) and that equivalent to higher -quality roosting
habitat is present in adjacent properties. Moreover, our records indicate that the project site is greater
than 50 miles from the nearest known occurrence for the northern long-eared bat. For these reasons,
and because the probability of "take" that could occur from this project is insignificant and/or
discountable, we would concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination for
the northern long-eared bat. The Service recommends that the cutting moratorium. of
May 15 -August 15 be incorporated into development plans. While our "not likely to adversely
affect" determination is not dependent on this action, the cutting moratorium is a measure that can be
implemented to further reduce the probability of"take" of this species.
The project site contains a field, roadsides, and open woodland areas, all of which are suitable habitat
for the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitaii). According to our
records, the nearest occurrence of this species is approximately 8 miles away from the site, and
records for at least four other populations are within less than 20 miles of the site. The Schweinitz's
sunflower occurs in relatively open habitats—road, power -line, and other maintained rights-of-way;
early successional fields; forest ecotonal margins; forest clearings; etc. It thrives in FuII sun but also
grows in the light shade of open stands of oak -pine -hickory. This species generally occurs on soils
characterized as moist to dryish clays, clay -foams, or sandy -clay loams that often have high gravel
content. The species is known from a variety of soil types, including fredell (Fine, Montmorillonitic,
Thermic Typic Hap]uduffj, Enon (Fine, Mixed, Thermic Ultic Hapiudalf), and Cecil (Clayey,
Kaolinitic, Thermic Typic Hapludult). lredell and Cecil loams compose approximately 90 acres of
the soil composition at the site.
Your letter did not indicate whether surveys have been conducted for this or other rare plant species
within the project impact area. Unless an area has been specifically surveyed for this listed species
or no appropriate habitat exists, a survey should be conducted to ensure that this species is not
inadvertently last. The Schweinitz's sunflower is difficult to identify and is even more challenging
to identify outside of the flowering season (late August to October). Therefore, we recommend that
surveys for this species be conducted during this period. Enclosed is a list of federally endangered
and threatened species and federal species of concern for Davidson County. 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.
In the interest of protecting fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, the Service provides the
following management recommendations:
Riparian Buffers
Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems, and the Service
recommends that forested riparian buffers be preserved and/or restored. We generally recommend
that forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide
along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater]) should
be created and/or maintained along ail aquatic areas. Within the watersheds of streams supporting
endangered aquatic species, we recommend undisturbed, forested buffers that are naturally vegetated
with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation and extend a minimum of 200 feet from the banks of
all perennial streams and a minimum of 100 feet from the banks ofa[I intermittent streams (or the
full extent of the 140 -year floodplain, whichever is greater).

Erosion Control and Stream Protection
The Service recommends that measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before
any ground -disturbing activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing
vegetation should be retained (if possible) in order to maintain shoreline cover for fish and wildlife.
Disturbed areas should be revegetated with native grass and tree species as soon as the project is
completed.
Stormwater Management
An increase in development (residential, commercial, and industrial) results in a concomitant
increase in impervious surface area and thus a similar relational increase in stormwater runoff.
Impervious surfaces (such as roofs, roads, and parking lots) collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and
chemical pollutants and quickly transmit them (via stormwater runoff) to receiving waters.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this nonpoint-source pollution is one of the
major threats to water quality in the United States, posing one of the greatest threats to aquatic life,
and is linked to chronic and acute illnesses in human populations from exposure through drinking
water and contact recreation. Increased stonnwater runoff also directly damages aquatic and riparian
habitat, causing streambank and stream -channel scouring. In addition, impervious surfaces reduce
groundwater recharge, resulting in even lower than expected stream flows during drought periods
that can induce potentially catastrophic effects for fish, mussels, and other aquatic life.
Best management practices can reduce, but not eliminate, pollutant loadings of common stormwater
pollutants. Designs that collect runoff and allow it to infiltrate the soil have the highest documented
pollutant -removal efficiency, eliminating nearly all lead, zinc, and solids and more than SD percent of
total phosphorous. Ponds and wetlands, which allow contaminants to settle out of the water column
or be broken down by sunlight and biological activity, can remove more than 70 percent of bacteria.
Where detention ponds are used, stormwater outlets should drain through a vegetated area prior to
reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention structures should be designed to allow for the
slow discharge of stormwater, attenuating the potential adverse effects of stormwater surges; thermal
spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the purpose of
stormwater-control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no stormwater-control measures or
hest management practices should be installed within any stream (perennial or intermittent), wetland,
or riparian area (when practicable).
Accordingly, the Service recommends that all new developments, regardless of the percentage of
impervious surface area they will create, implement stormwater-retention and -treatment measures
designed to replicate and maintain the hydrograph at the preconstruction condition in order to avoid
any additional impacts to habitat quality within the watershed. We also recommend the use of
low -impact -development techniques, such as reduced road widths, grassed swales in place of curb
and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention areas, for retaining and treating stormwater runoff
rather than the more traditional measures, such as large retention ponds, etc. Sufficient retention
designs should be implemented to allow for the slow discharge of stormwater, attenuating the
potential adverse effects of stormwater surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical
discharges. These designs often cost less to install and significantly reduce environmental impacts
from development.
The Service recommends that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials (i.e., pervious
concrete, interlocking/open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction of roads, driveways, sidewalks,
etc. Pervious surfaces minimize changes to the hydrology of the watershed and can be used to
3

facilitate groundwater recharge_ Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and store Beat and
allow the cooler soil below to cool the pavement (thus preventing heated water from entering
adjacent waterways). Additionally, pervious concrete requires less maintenance and is less
susceptible to freeze/thaw cracking due to large voids within the concrete. We also recommend (if
applicable) the incorporation of a rooftop garden or any type of green rooftop into the building
construction plans. Green rooftops have many benefits, including: (a) keeping buildings warmer by
adding a layer of insulation to the roof and keeping buildings cooler by allowing plants to take in
water that evaporates into the atmosphere, resulting in lower heating and cooling bills; (b) reducing
the amount and improving the quality of stormwater runoff because water is absorbed and filtered
through plants and soil; and (c) improving overall air quality by removing particulate matter from the
air. This, along with the proposed stormwater runoff collection devices that will be constructed, will
dramatically decrease the amount and increase the quality of stormwater runoff:
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a "Guidance Memorandum to
Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife
Resources and Water Quality" that we support and encourage you to use. It can be accessed via the
Internet as follows:
laalp:Ilwww.ncwiddlife.nrgIpg[]7 wildl fespeciescon/pg7c3_intpacrs.pgf:
Invasive Exotic Species
Invasive plants occur on the site. The Service is concerned that without active management,
including the revegetation of disturbed areas with native species, the project area may become a
source for the movement of invasive exotic plant species. Exotic species are a major contributor to
species depletion and extinction, second only to habitat loss. Exotics are a factor contributing to the
endangered or threatened status of more than 40 percent of the animals and plants on the Federal List
gl'Endangemd anti Threatened Wildlife and Plants.' It is estimated that at least 4,000 exotic plant
species and 2,304 exotic animal species are now established in the United States, costing more than
$130 billion a year to control' Additionally, the U.S. Government has many programs and laws in
place to combat invasive species (see www.invasivespecies.gov) and thus cannot spend money to
counter these efforts. Specifically, Section 2(a)(3) of Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species
(February 3, 1999) directs federal agencies to "not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it
believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United
States or elsewhere." Despite their short-term erosion -control benefits, many exotic species used in
soil -stabilization seed mixes are persistent once they are established, thereby preventing the
reestablishment of native vegetation. Many of these exotic plants3 are also aggressive invaders of
nearby natural areas, where they are capable of displacing already -established native species.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that only native plant species be used in association with all
aspects of this project.
Lastly, the Service recommends contacting the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
concerning potential impacts to state -protected species if you have not already done so.
D. S. Wilcove, D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phi €lips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species
in the United States. Bioscience 48:607-615.
'D. Pimente€, L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous
species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-65.
3 Lists of invasive exotic plants can be found at ht1p:11wNnv.wild{flower.orglpirant_gallerieslinvasives list.
4

The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at 8281258-3939, Ext. 225, ifyou have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-15-555.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
UJanet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor
5

Davidson County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate S... Pagel of 2
Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern,
and Candidate Species,
Davidson County, North Carolina
Updated: 7-24-2415
Common Name Scientific name Federal Record Status
Status
Vertebrate:
Bala eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGPA
Current
Carolina darter
Etheostoma collis collis
FSC
Current
Eastern small -footed bat
Myotis leihii
FSC
Current
Northern lonL-eared bat
Myotis septentrlonalir
T
Current
Invertebrate:
Vascular Plant:
Georgia aster
Symphyotrichum georgianum
C
Current
Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil
Lotus unifoliolalus var. helleri
FSC
Current
Schweinitz's sunflower
Helianthus schweinitzii
E
Current
Nonvascular Plant:
Lichen:
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range."
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support
listing. (Formerly "CI" candidate species.)
BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
FSC=Federal Species of Concern. FSC is an informal term. It is not defined in the federal Endangered Species Act.
In North Carolina, the Asheville and Raleigh Field Offices of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) define
Federal Species of Concern as those species that appear to be in decline or otherwise in need of conservation and are
under consideration for listing or for which there is insufficient information to support listing at this time.Subsumed
under the term "FSC" are all species petitioned by outside parties and other selected focal species identified in
Service strategic plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, or Natural Heritage Program Lists.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/entylist/davidson.html 10/21/2015

Davidson County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate 5... Page 2 of 2
T(SIA) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with
another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not biologically endangered or
threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. See below.
EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental,
nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land, for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or "PT".
respectively.
Bald and Golden Ea a Protection Act BGPA :
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37345-37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de-
listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This delisting took effect August 8,2007. After
delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (15 U.S.C. 668-668d) becomes the primary law
protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of
"take" that includes "disturb". The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide
guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. For mor information,
visit http.lLwww.fws.gov/migratoEybirds/baldeap-le.htm
Threatened due to similarity of appearanceMS/AD:
In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northerri population of the bog turtle (from New York
south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia) was
listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(SIA) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(SIA) designation has
no effect on land management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of
the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the southern
population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
Definitions of Record Status:
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Incidental/migrant -- the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of known records
(in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both.
htip://www.fws.govlraleigh/species/cntylist/davidson.html 10/21/2015

Brad Luckey
From: Hamstead, Byron <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:58 PM
To: Brad Luckey
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: USFWS Response; Proposed Industrial Development nr 1-85, Davidson County, NC
Hi Brad,
Many thanks for the additional information regarding habitat suitability for Schweinitz's sunflower. Based on
that information and your revised assessment of suitable habitat for this species, the Service concurs with your
"may affect, but not likely to adversely affect determination." Therefore, we believe the requirements under
section 7 of the Act are fulfilled at this time.
However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts
of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered,
(2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. I look forward to working with you. Feel free to
call my cell anytime: 919.946.0874.
Regards,
Byron
Byron Hamstead
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
USFWS Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St., Suite B
Asheville, NC, 28801
828-258-3939 ext. 225

This email correspondence an any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Brad Luckey <bluckeykpilotenviro.com> wrote:
Good Morning Byron,
Thank you taking time to speak with me this morning. I wanted to describe in more detail the areas of suitable habitat
for Schweinitz's sunflower at the site. In general, wooded areas located on the northeast and northwestern portions of
the site have been timbered within the last five to ten years and have densely vegetated mid/understories dominated
by primarily invasive species (Chinese privett and autumn olive). Additionally, wooded areas along the western portion
of the site are predominantly wetlands. Therefore, the wooded/timbered areas of the site are not conducive habitat
for Schweinitz's. Additionally, maintained transition zones between agricultural fields and wooded land are not present
at the site. Based on a site visit towards the end the growing season last year, the agricultural fields were planted with
corn and soybeans. This year, the fields were planted in foraging crops consisting of fescue grass and pearl
millet. Neither site visit identified maintained transition zones between the fields and wooded areas that would be
considered suitable habitat for Schweinitz's.
Based on our site visits, roadsides along Belmont Road and Belmont Road Extension would be considered suitable
habitat for Schweinitz's. However, based on the proposed development of the site with an industrial park, the only
potential impact to suitable habitat would be associated with access road entrances/exits to the proposed industrial
park of which an existing access road will be used and it is anticipated that only a few additional access roads will be
required for proposed industrial development of the site. Therefore, the potential impact to suitable habitat is a very
low percentage and would likely be less than 1% of total suitable habitat present at the site. When accounting for
distances to known Schweinitz's populations and based on the low percentage of anticipated impact to suitable
habitat, it is our opinion that the appropriate determination for Schweinitz's sunflower is may affect; not likely to
adversely affect. As such, we are requesting concurrence of our opinion from FWS via email.
Please let me know if you require additional information. Thanks.
Sincerely,
KIL T ENVIRONMENTAL INC Bradley S. Luckey
336.708.4997 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128

Kernersville, NC 27285
www.Dilotenviro.com
[e-mail]
From: Hamstead, Byron [mailto:byron [e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:52 PM
To: Brad Luckey <[e-mail]>
Cc: William.A.Elliott(a�usace.armv.mil
Subject: USFWS Response; Proposed Industrial Development nr 1-85, Davidson County, NC
Mr. Luckey,
Attached is the Service's response to the project referenced above. Please contact me with any questions you
may have.
Regards,
Byron
Byron Hamstead
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
USFWS Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St., Suite B
Asheville, NC, 28801
828-258-3939 ext. 225

This email correspondence an any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of
Information Act and may be disclosed to third parties.

To: Mr. Bernhard Vorreiter
Technical Project Manager
FRITZ EGGER GmbH & Co. OG
Weiberndorf 20
A-6380 St. Johann
From: Quentin Cannatella, ERM
Jonathan Connelly, ERM
Date: 9 June 2017
Subject: Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat Assessment
Linwood, Davidson County, North Carolina
Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM) is pleased to present
the following letter report describing the results of our habitat
assessment for two federally -listed species, the northern long-eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) at the 431 -acre Site in Linwood, Davidson County, North
Carolina. On 2 June 2017, Jonathan Connelly and Michael Wolfe of ERM
conducted a habitat assessment of the Site.
METHODS
Prior to the site visit, ERM conducted a desktop review of the study area,
utilizing the following data resources: geographic information system
(GIS) data; satellite image interpretation; United States Geological Survey
(USGS) topographic maps; the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Tool; and, the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program: Species/ Community Search (to
review potential species and their habitats onsite). A preliminary
understanding of site conditions was derived from this review, and is
referenced in the discussion of the on-site reconnaissance methods.
Based on the IPaC tool, two federally -listed species, viz. the northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii), have the potential to occur within the Site (see
Attachment 2). Additionally, the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program has determined that there is northern long-eared bat habitat
located within several counties in North Carolina, including Davidson
County (see Attachment 3). However, there is no critical habitat for these
species onsite. In addition to the federally -listed species, there are 16
migratory bird species of conservation concern that may also occur
onsite. These bird species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Environmental
Resources
Management
180 Admiral Cochrane Dr.
Suite 400
Annapolis, MD 21401
[phone]
[phone] (fax)

PAG E 2
Act and/or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and any taking
(impact) of these species is prohibited (see Attachment 2).
At the site, ERM staff canvassed the property to determine whether the site included
the necessary habitat requirements for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) and
Schweinitz's sunflower. ERM staff conducted a systematic pedestrian reconnaissance
along the forested edges to assess whether conditions - such as tree species presence
and size, solar exposure, and snag presence - were supportive for utilization by the
NLEB. For Schweinitz's sunflower, ERM focused on the edge boundaries between
field and forest, edges around developed and disturbed areas, and along or within
maintained electrical transmission rights-of-way. The centralized maintained grass
areas and previously disturbed areas (e.g., piles of concrete and sand) were not
considered to contain the habitat requirements to support these species.
FINDINGS
The approximate 431 -acre Site is located east of Interstate 85 within the southern
portion of Davidson County, North Carolina. The Site is bordered by Belmont Road
to the north and an active railroad yard to the south. Agricultural and residential
structures are located along Belmont Road, and a recycling center is located along the
northeastern site boundary. The western edge of the Site is bordered by forest
associated with the South Potts Creek. Most of the Site is composed of maintained
grass fields, with bands of forested vegetation encompassing the fields and occurring
along the perimeter of the Site. Access to the Site includes three driveways along
Belmont Road, (i.e., two gravel driveways and one paved driveway). A manmade
irrigation pond and an emergent pond are located within the central and southern
portions of the site, while narrow stream channels are located throughout the Site (see
Attachment 1). Previously disturbed areas, including: a home in the process of being
relocated; jersey -barriers; and, sand/ gravel stock piles, are centrally located onsite
and are surrounded by the grass fields. A single-family dwelling with associated
appurtenances, including a barn and livestock pens, are located within the southern
portion of the Site.
As indicated, much of the perimeter of the Site is forested; the species mix includes:
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera); eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides); sassafras
(Sassafras albidum); eastern red cedar (Juniper virginiana); black willow (Salix nigra);
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata); box elder (Acer negundo); sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua); willow oak (Quercus phellos); black cherry (Prunus serotina); turkey oak
(Quercus laevis); winged elm (Ulmus alata); sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum); tree of
heaven (Ailanthus altissima); honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos); sugarberry (Celtis
laevigata); and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis); plus some others. The shrub layer, in
varying assemblages, is composed of box elder; paw paw (Asimina triloba); sweet gum;

PAG E 3
common elderberry (Sambucus nigra); winged sumac (Rhus copallinum); mulberry
(Morus sp.); silky dogwood (Cornus amomum); southern magnolia (Magnolia
grandiflora); and mimosa (Albizia julibrissin). The herbaceous vegetation of the fields,
forest edges and rights-of-way includes a strong presence of Johnson grass (Sorghum
halepense) and goldenrods (Solidago spp.). Also observed were: wingstem (Verbesina
alternifolia); cow -vetch (Vicia cracca); poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans); Queen Anne's
lace (Daucus carota); common rush (Juncus effusus); bush clovers (Lespedeza spp.); St.
John's wort (Hypericum spp.); butterflyweed (Asclepias tuberosa); common milkweed
(Asclepias syriaca); boneset (Eupatorium spp.); blackberry (Rubus spp.); Carolina
horsenettle (Solanum carolinense); common mullein (Verbascum thapsus); eastern daisy
fleabane (Erigeron annuus); purple passionflower (Passiflora incarnata); Indian
strawberry (Duchesnea indica); clovers (Trifolium spp.); miscellaneous grass species,
and various other herbaceous species were observed (see Attachment 1 -Habitat
Assessment).
SPECIES OF CONCERN
The following are brief discussions of findings relative to the species of concern.
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
ERM did not observe any specimens of the federally -listed northern long-eared bat.
However, ERM did observe some potential roost trees within the forested areas of the
Site that exhibit the typical habitat for the species (e.g., hollow trees). Individuals
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities or in crevices of both live trees
and snags (dead trees); and seem to be flexible in selecting roosts, choosing roost trees
based on suitability to retain bark or provide cavities or crevices. They rarely roost in
human structures like barns and sheds (NLEB Fact Sheet, 2015). The potential roost
trees are depicted on Attachment 1: Habitat Assessment. The trees that were observed
in the vicinity of the Site were only a few scattered individuals (versus a forest stand
of suitable habitat). These trees would not be considered significant habitat; therefore,
the clearing restrictions under the 4D Rule 1 would apply. However, if EGGER clears
trees during winter (15 November - 31 March), there will be no regulatory issues with
bats.
Schewinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
ERM did not observe any specimens of the federally -listed Endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) within the Site. Schweinitz's sunflower is a
1 The 4d Rule for NLEBs incidental take is only prohibited if it: 1) occurs within a 0.25 mile (0.4 kilometer) radius of known
NLEB hibernacula; or 2) removes known occupied maternity roost trees, or any other trees within a 150 -foot (45 -meter)
radius from a known maternity tree during the pup season (June 1 through July 31).

PAG E 4
perennial that regularly grows approximately 6.5 feet (ft) (2.0 meters) tall (though it
can be shorter if young or injured), and can occasionally reach heights of 16 ft (4.8 m).
It has a purplish stem; generally sessile leaves (leaves found directly at the stem) that
are thick, scabrous above and downy (hairy) on the underside with thick tuberous
roots. Schweinitz's sunflower produces small yellow flowers from late August until
frost. It can grow in full to partial sun and many of the remaining populations occur
along roadsides, within maintained rights -of way, or at the edges of forested areas
(FWS 2015; Radford et al.1968).
Though the reconnaissance work was performed in early June, prior to the flowering
season for H. schweinitzii, Michael Wolfe of ERM is very knowledgeable of
Schweinitz's sunflower and is experienced with recognizing the vegetative profile of
sunflowers within the mix of other herbaceous species growing at a site. Mr. Wolfe
completed his master's thesis in ecological biology on the morphological variability of
this species, has conducted numerous reconnaissance efforts for Schweinitz's
sunflower, and has found new populations of Schweinitz's sunflower outside of the
flowering season. Mr. Wolfe also has over 100 stems of H. schweinitzii growing on his
home property.
ERM found that most of the open field areas within the Site boundary were too
densely vegetated with Johnson grass and other aggressive species to support the
successful growth for the Schweinitz's sunflower. ERM did observe a few specimens
of small woodland sunflower (Helianthus microcephalus) within the powerline
transmission right-of-way in the northwest portion of the Site. However, the
vegetation morphology of these plants, including the presence of petiolate leaves (the
stalk that attaches the lead to the plant stem), indicated clearly that these sunflowers
were not H. schweinitzii.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
ERM performed a habitat assessment on the approximate 431 -acre Site to determine
the existing conditions onsite and whether it provided the necessary habitat
requirements to support the two federally -listed species, the northern long-eared bat
and the Schweinitz's sunflower. During ERM's 2 June 2017 habitat assessment, four
standing deadwood [trees], three shagbark hickory trees, and one honey locust (with
shaggy bark) were GPS located in and around the Site. These trees were noted as
having the potential to provide roosting habitat for the northern long-eared bat;
however, since these trees are scattered individuals throughout the site, it is unlikely
that they would be considered significant habitat for the species. Currently, it is
unknown whether northern long-eared bat hibernacula are located within 0.25 -miles
from the Site. If there are no known hibernacula within 0.25 -miles of the Site, then the
4d Rule would not be triggered onsite and the trees could be removed during any

PAG E 5
time of the year. Additionally, the Schweinitz's sunflower was not observed onsite.
Though the species does not flower until later in the season, ERM had an expert on
the species during the assessment and it was determined that the species was not
observed onsite.
Although not required, added flexibility can be gained by completing a North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program Site Review. This Review will determine whether
or not northern long-eared bat hibernacula is located within 0.25 -miles from the Site,
and thus definitively determine that there is or is not northern long-eared bat
hibernacula within close proximity to the Site. Typically a map and minor information
is provided to the agency and they provide a response in approximately two weeks.
Thank you for the opportunity to support this project. Please don't hesitate to contact
ERM with any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Connelly
Environmental Impact Assessor
6-k- 6""If
Quentin Cannatella
Sr. Consultant

PAG E 6
REFERENCES
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Schweinitz's Sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field
Office. httl2s://www.fws.gov/raleigh/sl2ecies/es—schweinitz sunflower.html
USFWS. 2015. Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Fact Sheet.
https: / /www.fws.gov/mountain-
prairie/ ea / Northernlongearedbatfactsheet_March2015.pdf

Attachment 1
Habitat Assessment Figure

inn
Habitat Type
Existing Single Family Dwelling
Existing Single Family Dwelling with Trees—=
Disturbed Areas (Concrete/Sand Piles)
"Ont fid
bu
............
. . . . . .
.............
. . . . . . . - -- . .. I I - _I:r, -•- - - 01�,
-4
0�•
Z
AfL
WC *nc
'2'— te' --ti e
25 362.5 0
A

Attachment 2
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) Tool

IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC
IPaC resource list
Page 1 of 9
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
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
Davidson County, North Carolina to%
Local office
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5MRXCA3S6RHOZE7YRVLBI5UT3M/resources 5/16/2017

1PaC: Explore Location
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]x@
Jbi [phone]
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
Endangered species
Page 2 of 9
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 ofterequired.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species �t requires Federal agencies to "request of the
Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to. be Itsted
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. 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.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5MRXCA3S6RHOZE7YRVLBI5UT3M/resources 5/16/2017

1PaC: Explore Location Page 3 of 9
Listed species
are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
1. 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.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Flowering Plants
NAME
STATUS
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Mammals
NAME
STATUS
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.goy/ecp/species/9045 I () I
Critical habitats Ot •
Potential effects to critic habitat(s) in this location must be an ze along with
the endangered species themselves. %%0 �—
THERE ARE NO CRITIC A OCATION.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5MRXCA3S6RHOZE7YRVLBI5UT3M/resources 5/16/2017

1PaC: Explore Location
Page 4 of 9
Any activity that results in the take (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of migratory
birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3. There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are
unintentionally killed or injured.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the
take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations
and implementing appropriate conservation measures.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
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
• Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-
assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measu res. p h p
• Year-round bird occurrence data
http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.isp
The migratory birds species listed below are species of particular conservation
concern (e.g. Birds of Qgnservatlon Concern) that may be potentially affected by
activities in this location. It is not a list of every bird species you may find in this
location, nor a guarantee that all of the bird species on this list will be found on or
near this location. Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all
birds, special attention should be made to avoid and minimize impacts to birds of
priority concern. To view available data on other bird species that may occur in your
project area, please visit the AKN Histogram Tools and Other Bird Data Resources. To
fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project -
specific information is often required.
NAME
SEASON(S)
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Wintering
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6582
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5MRXCA3S6RHOZE7YRVLBI5UT3M/resources 5/16/2017

1PaC: Explore Location
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Year-round
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Blue -winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Breeding
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla Year-round
Chuck -will's -widow Caprimulgus carolinensis Breeding
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Wintering
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeding
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Breeding
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6175
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeding
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea � Breeding X1
Red-headed Woodpec er elanerpes erythrocephal j e�-1
3
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus caro in Wintering
Short -eared Owl Asia flammeus Wintering
htt s://ec fws. v/ec /s ecies/9295
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeding
Worm Eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum Breeding
Page 5 of 9
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5MRXCA3S6RHOZE7YRVLBI5UT3M/resources 5/16/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 6 of 9
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory bird species potentially occurring in my
specified location?
Landbirds:
Migratory birds that are displayed on the IPaC species list are based on ranges in the latest edition
of the National Geographic Guide, Birds of North America (6th Edition, 2011 by Jon L. Dunn, and
Jonathan Alderfer). Although these ranges are coarse in nature, a number of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service migratory bird biologists agree that these maps are some of the best range maps to date.
These ranges were clipped to a specific Bird Conservation Region (BCR) or USFWS Region/Regions,
if it was indicated in the 2008 list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that a species was a BCC
species only in a particular Region/Regions. Additional modifications have been made to some
ranges based on more local or refined range information and/or information provided by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service biologists with species expertise. All migratory birds that show in areas on land
in IPaC are those that appear in the 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report.
Atlantic Seabirds:
Ranges in IPaC for birds off the Atlantic coast are derived from species distribution models
developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) using the best available seabird survey data for the offshore
Atlantic Coastal region to date. NOAANCCOS assisted USFWS in developing seasonal species
ranges from their models for specific use in IPaC. Some of these birds are not BCC species but
were of interest for inclusion because they may occur in high abundance off the coast at different
times throughout the year, which potentially makes them more susceptible to certain types of
development and activities taking place in that area. For more refined details about the abundance
and richness of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, see the Northeast
Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other types of taxa that may
be helpful in your project review. IUV
About the NOAANCCOS models: the models were de loped as part of the NOAANCCOS project:
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and
Abundance on the Atlantic ❑uter Continental Shelf. The models resulting from this project are
being used in a number of decision-support/mapping products in order to help guide decision-
making on activities off the Atlantic Coast with the goal of reducing impacts to migratory birds. One
such product is the Northeast Ocean Data Portal, which can be used to explore details about the
relative occurrence and abunda ce rd %a {ps in a particular area off the Atlantic Coast.
All migratory bird range maps wit aC are continuously being updated as new and better
information be V
available.
Can I get additional information about the levels of occurrence in my project area of specific
birds or groups of birds listed in IPaC?
Landbirds:
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5MRXCA3S6RHOZE7YRVLBI5UT3M/resources 5/16/2017

1PaC: Explore Location
Page 7 of 9
The Avian Knowledge Network (AKN) provides a tool currently called the "Histogram Tool", which
draws from the data within the AKN (latest,survey, point count, citizen science datasets) to create a
view of relative abundance of species within a particular location over the course of the year. The
results of the tool depict the frequency of detection of a species in survey events, averaged
between multiple datasets within AKN in a particular week of the year. You may access the
histogram tools through the Migratory Bird Programs AKN Histogram Tools webpage.
The tool is currently available for 4 regions (California, Northeast U.S., Southeast U.S. and Midwest),
which encompasses the following 32 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North,
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In the near future, there are plans to expand this tool nationwide within the AKN, and allow the
graphs produced to appear with the list of trust resources generated by IPaC, providing you with
an additional level of detail about the level of occurrence of the species of particular concern
potentially occurring in your project area throughout the course of the year.
Atlantic Seabirds:
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 NOAANCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and
Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf project webpage. Ot NOX 0
Facilities ti
Wildlife refuges
Any activity proposed att naf ildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility
Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGES AT THIS LOCATION.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5MRXCA3S6RHOZE7YRVLBI5UT3M/resources 5/16/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory
Page 8 of 9
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.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1 Ch
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PF01 Ch
PSS1 A
PF01Ah JOV
PF01A
PSS5Hh Ot ■
FRESHWATER POND VA 4a It ,
0
PUBHx
PUBHh
LAKE
L1 UBHh C.0
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands
Inventory website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wetlands/decoder
Data limitations
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5MRXCA3S6RHOZE7YRVLBI5UT3M/resources 5/16/2017

1PaC: Explore Location
Page 9 of 9
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 overwetlands 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 lnventory,.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.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5MRXCA3S6RHOZE7YRVLBI5UT3M/resources 5/16/2017

Attachment 3
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program:
Davidson County

(Data updated on May 16, 2017)
M rotis septentrionalis (Northern Long-eared Bat)
Taxonomic Group. Mammal, NC Status: SR, FederaL Status: T -4(d). State Rank: S2. CiLobaL Rank: GIG2
Habitat Comment: roosts in hollow trees and buiLdings (warmer months)_ in caves and mines (winter): madnLy in the mountains
(Searched on Mon Jun 05 2017)
Map Satellite
�i�adi�ao
Davidson County � :id%ville
Y Mlyotis septentrionalis (Northern Long-eared Eat)
Taxonomic Group: Mammal f
i
a, SR T,4(d) 82 1 r,1 G2 I
Status: Current
Habitat Cornment: i
.'+ ,{ }` r Z, roasts in hoII-ow trees and buildings (warmer months.(.
may , '-'' # in caves and mines (winter): mainly in the mountains
Taylorsville
Mocksvi=le
Gr 'te Falls Statesville
ickory Cleveland
Y Newton
—,_—� Maiden'; Mooresville China Err
-�
of Davidson Kannapalis
Lincalnton
— Concord
Current: the element has been seen recentLy
Historical.: the element has not been seen recently
Obscure: the date the element was last seen is uncertain L fat
b41unu �7'— vi—. C;nC�tnniq W '. liiriiat
W 0421
Randleman
Cf 14D J - Ramseur
Asheboro
0
Seagrove
UWhSrI;e 027
Albemarle-NatioPal Forest CP
+. . Candor
, sa Yanceywille
I (D
Roxboro
,Eg
Butner
Burlington Mebane
1 jo Hillsborough
B
5i ler City
Durham
Chapel Hill
Pittsbara
acs,
,
Buie% G +
qr Srt�,ag_
Map of Ure Repa:i a rrmap error

POND DRAINAGE AREA (TYP) \
ACCESS ROAD
BY OTHERS
POND DRAINAGE AREA (TYP) I/
PHASE 3 WILL HAVE ITS OWN STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT DEVICE (S) WHEN DEVELOPED. PROPERTY LINE /
PHASE 1 & 2
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
N_
�q STORMWATER MANGEMENT POND
Ii SEE ENLARGEMENT EXHIBIT
RAIL SPURS
I I EXISTING OH TRANSMISSION
LINES TO BE RELOCATED
----------
0
----0 —
DHP-OHP❑ HP -OHP- P -o --OHP-
\ OHP -OHP-{
• POND DRAINAGE AREA (TYP)
O-P,roject phase I
® Project phase 11 (further investment)
D Project phase III (further investment)
i SII
esas�r�i
v f�
POND DRAINAGE AREA: 150.02 ACRES
POND SURFACE AREA (EXCLUDING FOREBAYS): 2.67 ACRES
NOTE: DRAINAGE AREA ASSUMED 100% IMPERVIOUS FOR
CURRENT SIZING WHICH WILL BE REVISED AT FINAL DESIGN
BUT THE CURRENT SURFACE AREA OF 2.67 ACRES WILL
REMAIN THE SAME.
OHI
\
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
OVERALL STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
(.7 st i m m e l 601 N. WINSTON-SALEM
ET,NC SUITE 200
27101
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
www.stimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
SCALE: 1 " = 400'
400 0 400
North
NCBEES CERT. NO.: C-1347
',`"µlnl lana",,
CAR"
�•
SEAL �
23552 T
•, n!G...... �
+aaa7fl f11 •Std,
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY LINE
PHASE 3
•.'I'Y,
°, F": :;"fir f�r°."''�,`,3ti:;iEFE;?, � 'R..^d•�..,...
100 YR FLOODPLAIN:,.
POND DRAINAGE AREA (TYP) \
ACCESS ROAD
BY OTHERS
POND DRAINAGE AREA (TYP) I/
PHASE 3 WILL HAVE ITS OWN STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT DEVICE (S) WHEN DEVELOPED. PROPERTY LINE /
PHASE 1 & 2
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
N_
�q STORMWATER MANGEMENT POND
Ii SEE ENLARGEMENT EXHIBIT
RAIL SPURS
I I EXISTING OH TRANSMISSION
LINES TO BE RELOCATED
----------
0
----0 —
DHP-OHP❑ HP -OHP- P -o --OHP-
\ OHP -OHP-{
• POND DRAINAGE AREA (TYP)
O-P,roject phase I
® Project phase 11 (further investment)
D Project phase III (further investment)
i SII
esas�r�i
v f�
POND DRAINAGE AREA: 150.02 ACRES
POND SURFACE AREA (EXCLUDING FOREBAYS): 2.67 ACRES
NOTE: DRAINAGE AREA ASSUMED 100% IMPERVIOUS FOR
CURRENT SIZING WHICH WILL BE REVISED AT FINAL DESIGN
BUT THE CURRENT SURFACE AREA OF 2.67 ACRES WILL
REMAIN THE SAME.
OHI
\
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
OVERALL STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
(.7 st i m m e l 601 N. WINSTON-SALEM
ET,NC SUITE 200
27101
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
www.stimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
SCALE: 1 " = 400'
400 0 400
North
NCBEES CERT. NO.: C-1347
',`"µlnl lana",,
CAR"
�•
SEAL �
23552 T
•, n!G...... �
+aaa7fl f11 •Std,
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN (TYP)
30' WIDE EMERGENCY / I
SPILLWAY. INV: 655.00 1
\ J Vit:
\ \ 42" DIP OUTLET
� � 1
\ I INV: 640.00 \
I• I
\III\`� 1\ \ I
I� SOUTH POTTS CREEK
I(
�— �0�- �o Jl 11 II I
-� PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
y11111 � �
POND DRAINAGE AREA: 150.02 ACRES
POND SURFACE AREA (EXCLUDING FOREBAYS): 2.67 ACRES
NOTE: DRAINAGE AREA ASSUMED 100% IMPERVIOUS FOR
CURRENT SIZING WHICH WILL BE REVISED AT FINAL DESIGN
BUT THE CURRENT SURFACE AREA OF 2.67 ACRES WILL
REMAIN THE SAME.
- _ ' i, I i, ll, / = /
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND
ENLARGEMENT
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
(.'� st i m me l 601 N. WINSTON-SALEM,
NC, 7101UITE 00
WIN .slim SALEM, NC 36.7
www.stimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
SCALE: 1 = 80'
80 0 80
North
NCBEES CERT. NO.: C-1847
,'y 11111111+f//
SEAL
•1j 111111�1�■
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Project: Egger Wood Products, LLC
Project No.: 17-212
Designed By: WC
Checked By:
WET DETENTION BASIN AVERAGE DEPTH
VPP(cf)= 985,885
APP(sf)= 116,507
davg(ft)= 8.46 use 8'
FORBAY SIZE CHECK
Date: 12/12/2017 I
Revised:
ELEVATION
POND
AREA (SF)
POND
VOL. (CF)
N-FORBAY
I AREA (SF)
N-FORBAY
VOL. (CF)
S-FORBAY
AREA (SF)
S-FORBAY
VOL. (CF)
641.5
90,122
0
1,414
0
2,061
0
642
91,574
45,424
2,686
1,025
3,828
1,472
643
94,502
93,038
6,201
4,444
9,130
6,479
644
97,464
95,983
6,865
6,533
10,010
9,570
645
100,460
98,962
7,560
7,213
10,931
10,471
646
103,490
101,975
8,286
7,923
11,893
11,412
647
106,554
105,022
9,044
8,665
12,895
12,394
648
109,652
108,103
9,831
9,438
13,935
13,415
649
112,786
111,219
10,650
10,241
15,013
14,474
650
116,507
226,159
11,786
21,617
16,357
30,292
77,097
Pond Vol.: 985,885 cf
Forbay Vol.: 187,076 cf
Forbay %: 18.98 OK
109,979

Environmental
NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual Quality
Table 1: Piedmont and Mountain SAIDA Table (Adapted from Driscoll, 1986)
10%
0.51
0.43
0.37
0.30
0.27
0.25
20%
0.84
0.69
0.61
0.51
0.44
0.40
30%
1.17
0.94
0.84
0.72
0.61
0.56
40%
1.51
1.24
1.09
0.91
0.78
0.71
50%
1.79
1.51
1.31
1.13
0.95
0.87
60%
2.09
1.77
1.49
1.31
1.12
1.03
70%
2.51
2.09
1.80
1.56
1.34
1.17
80%
2.92
2.41
2.07
1.82
1.62
1.40
90%
3.25
2.64
2.31
2.04
1.84
1.59
100%
3.55
2.79
2.52
2.34
2.04
1.75
Table 2: Coastal SAIDA Table (Adapted from Driscoll, 1986)
10%
0.78
0.61
0.44
0
0
0
20%
1.48
1.04
0.87
0.70
0.52
0.35
30%
2.18
1.65
1.39
1.13
0.87
0.70
40%
2.96
2.26
1.83
1.39
0.96
0.78
50%
3.65
2.87
2.35
1.83
1.31
1.96
60%
4.35
3.31
2.78
2.26
1.74
1.13
70%
5.22
3.92
3.22
2.52
1.83
1.31
80%
5.92
4.52
3.65
2.78
1.91
1.57
90%
6.53
5.05
4.18
2.96
2.44
1.74
100%
7.13
5.92
4.87
3.83
2.78
1.83
C-3. Wet Pond 7 Revised: 4-18-2017

USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
ELECTRICAL
SUBSTATION
I
STORMWATER
POND I ` '—
I
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL ` 1
OPEN WATER AND WETLANDS.
TOTAL IMPACTS �\.
WETLANDS = 0.24 ACRES
POND = 0.50 ACRES
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
OPEN WATER. NO IMPACTS
OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
LINE SPANS WETLANDS
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS AND WETLANDS.
TOTAL IMPACTS
STREAMS = 203 LF
WETLANDS = 0.57 ACRES
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
LINE SPANS WETLANDS
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
OPEN WATER AND STREAMS.
TOTAL IMPACTS
J I I\Lr%IVIJ - `t.7 Lr
POND = 0.26 ACRES
rr-r--w � rte;
BUILDING CORNER
100' SETBACK FROM
BELMONT RD R/W
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
NO I M PACTS
0
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
ALTERNATIVE WETLANDS IMPACT
OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE #1
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
691 N. TRADE STREET, SUITE 200
stimmel�WINSTON-SALEM,NC27101
Wwwstimmeipaxom 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
DISCALE: 1 " = 500'
ANYW""
500 0 500
North
TOTAL IMPACTS:
STREAMS = 252 LF
WETLANDS = 0.81 ACRES
POND = 0.76 ACRES
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS AND WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
I I
.%'�-N CARO<���'
O F
S
yam=
SEAL �2 -
14 85 S
j z 1�
FA L _V

USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
ELECTRICAL
SUBSTATION
y. —
nUF
'fill'
: w
I flap
132.23'
STORMWATER
POND
OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
LINE SPANS WETLANDS
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS AND WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
PHASE III DEVELOPMENT
IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH
THIS ALTERNATIVE.
�— APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
LINE SPANS WETLANDS
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
OPEN WATER, STREAM AND WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
ALTERNATIVE WETLANDS IMPACT
ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE #1
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
601 N. TRADE STREET, SUITE 200
=.3*' st i m me I i WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
wwwstimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
SCALE: 1 11
11 1 500
North
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS AND WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
CAR
O<
O;Ir SS O
9
SEAL
14 85
L TSG; �`�,

USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
ELECTRICAL
SUBSTATION
STORMWATER
POND RAILWAY ALIGNMENT
WILL NOT WORK
WITH THIS SITE POSITION.
DISTANCE FROM TRANSMISSION
TOWER IS INSUFFICIENT.
OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
LINE SPANS WETLANDS
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS AND WETLANDS.
TOTALIMPACTS
STREAMS = 580 LF
WETLANDS = 1.08 ACRES
APPROXIMATE —J
LIMITS OF GRADING
OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
LINE SPANS WETLANDS
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
OPEN WATER AND WETLANDS.
TOTAL IMPACTS
WETLANDS = 0.24 ACRES
POND = 0.50 ACRES
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
ALTERNATIVE WETLANDS IMPACT
ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE #2
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
601 N. TRADE STREET, SUITE 200
st i m m e l WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
www.stimmelpa.com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
VESCALE: 1 " = 500'
500 0 500
North
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS AND WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
TOTAL IMPACTS:
STREAMS = 580 LF
WETLANDS = 1.32 ACRES
POND = 0.50 ACRES
�N CAROB
S O
SEAL
14485
NFq L TSO:
nlnnl``1�

USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
NO IMPACTS
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
— ELECTRICAL
SUBSTATION
A
STORMWATER
POND
MATERIAL STORAGE
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS
OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
LINE SPANS WETLANDS
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
TOTAL IMPACTS
WETLANDS = 0.29 ACRES
�I
�j
APPROXIMATE -,
LIMITS OF GRADING
OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
LINE SPANS WETLANDS
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
OPEN WATER, STREAM AND WETLANDS.
TOTAL IMPACTS
STREAMS = 49 LF
WETLANDS = 0.24 ACRES
POND = 1.00 ACRES
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
N O I M PACTS
R
EGGER
WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC
LEXINGTON, NC 12/12/17
ALTERNATIVE WETLANDS IMPACT
ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE #3
Prepared for:
Project #: 17-246
Prepared by:
601 N. TRADE STREET, SUITE 200
-
WINSTON-SALEM. NC 27101
stimmei{ wwwstlmmelpa,com 336.723.1067
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING
29 SCALE: 1 " = 500'
AMM_m"
500 0 500
North
USACE / NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL
STREAMS AND WETLANDS.
N O I M PACTS
TOTAL IMPACTS:
STREAMS = 49 LF
WETLANDS = 0.53 ACRES
POND = 1.00 ACRES
\A CARO
O� S
SEAL
14 85
0
�NGINE���:
L T

Wgc dbnSer'vices
Q#VIROMMEMT.RL QUALITY
November 29, 2017
Bernhard Vorreiter
Egger Wood Products, LLC
PO Box 907
Lexington, NC 27293
Project: Egger Wood Products
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secn mry
Expiration of Acceptance: 5/29/2018
County: Davidson
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
S 8 -digit HUC
03040103
Impact Type
Impact Quantity
Yadkin
Warm Stream
100
Yadkin
03040103
Riparian Wetland
0.75
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and
15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Bradley Luckey, agent
Sincerely,
Jame . B Stanfill
A set anagement Supervisor
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T