20050263 Ver 1_Complete File_20050210

Mich-d F. Ccnncr. PE
Arthur C. Brcadbocks, PE
Samuel R. Strickland. FE
11 ? ?
?i
Eiwincerin Seri icc , PA
Structural & Civil Engineering
Commercial & Residential
E3ruce `'dal cl). RA
c ':"L"'-
,. , C1. a;
November 21, 2005
NCDENR
Attention: Division of Water Quality
401 Oversite/Express Review Permits Unit
1615 Mail Service Center l 1u! ??' i
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Riverbend Urban Business Park I
Asheville, Buncombe County , NCB
DWQ #: 05-0263;USACE Ac?t' rf ID. NO. 200531109
Attention: Allen W. Kli I , EK, P.E.
Dear Mr. Klimek,
One of the conditions attached to the subject water quality certification was that a
written storm water management plan should be filed for the subject project. A water
quality management plan prepared by Wolverton has been previously been filed and has
been implemented for the overall Riverbend Development of which this particular permit
is a subpart. At this point in time, no changes to the assumptions from the original report
will be conducted. At some point in the future modifications to the storm water
management plan may be required. At this time the scope for those phases is conceptual
and dates are unknown.
We will proceed with completion of the work under this permit and at the point in time
in the future when the changes to the storm water management plan have can be
defined, a modified storm water management plan will be prepared and submitted for
approval.
? ?r--n t;:?,
Sincerely, U
C90 V (? D
LL?S
?? ?n SEC 2 8 2005
Mica F. Connor, PE
DENR - WATER QUALITY
VScTLANDSMID ST"-'MUTER ERN.-CH
M FC/j rt
? OTC 2 ,? tip05

r; Robcrts Rwd
As,h; n rile. 'vC

Project 05-050041
?OF . W A7- qQ Michael F. Easley, Govemor
?O, G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
,I? ?' North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
6 6w ! r
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
- Division of Water Quality
May 5, 2005
DWQ Project # 05-0263
Buncombe County
CERTIFIED i?IAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Harley Dunn
Riverbend, LLC
P.O. Box 528
Asheville, NC, 28802
Subject Property: River Bend Business Park
Swannanoa River, 6-78, Class C
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Dunn:
On March 17, 2005, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application to impact 0.27 acres
of wetlands to construct the proposed project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506, a thorough
review has been conducted by staff of the DWQ Asheville Regional Office. Based on this review, we
have determined that significant uses could be removed or degraded by this project. You should note that
we are moving toward denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and will place this
project on hold as incomplete unless the referenced impacts are reduced or eliminated completely.
Additional Information Requested:
1. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
This is a second application for impacts associated with the Riverbend Marketplace, the first of
which was issued September 29, 2003 for impacts to 0.25 acre of wetlands and 872 feet of
streams. At that time, the 0.27-acre wetland location in question was presented by the applicant
as evidence of "avoidance" in the application, and therefore became a condition of the 401
Certification issued for the project. Therefore, the proposed impact directly contradicts your prior
stated plans, would constitute a violation of the existing 401 Certification, and conflicts with 15A
NCAC 2H .0506( c) which addresses avoidance and minimization of impacts. The proposed
impact, should you choose to pursue it, would involve re-opening of the 401 Certification issued
on September 29, 2003 for enforcement action.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in writing
and Kevin Barnett of the DWQ Asheville Regional Office. If we do not hear from you within three
weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] / Internet http://h2o.enr.state.no.us/ncvvetlands
NcotiliCarolina
Alatimally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50°10 Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Riverbend Busindss ?ark
Page 2 of 2
May 5, 2005
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Mr. Kevin Barnett at the DWQ Asheville Regional
Office at 828-296-4500 or Ms. Cyndi Karoly at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions regarding or
would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
0?
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
CBKlcbk
cc: Kevin Barnett, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 050263RiverBend(Buncombe)HOLD
r
W AT ?RQG
1"'1! I Ir1
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O? 'C

August 8, 2005
Mr. Harley Dunn
River Bend, LLC
P.O. Box 528
Asheville, NC 28802
Re: River Bend Business Park, Asheville, Buncombe County
DWQ #05-0263; USACE Action ID. No. 200531109
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Mr. Dunn:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3524 issued to Mr. Harley Dunn of River Bend, LLC, dated
August 8, 2005. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead
with your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste, Sediment and Erosion Control, Stormwater,
Dam Safety, Non-discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, AshevilleRegulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, USACOE
Kevin Barnett, DWQ, Asheville Regional Office
DLR Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Clement Riddle, Clearwater Environmental Services, Inc., 224 South Grove Street, Suite F,
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Filename: 050263RiverBendMarketplace(Bunconibe)401_IC
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
NorthCarolina
,11atura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
River Bend, LLC
Page 2 of 4
August 8, 2005
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Mr. Harley Dunn of River Bend, LLC to fill 0.27 acre of
jurisdictional wetlands in the French Broad River Basin, associated with the construction of a high density
mixed use urban community in Buncombe County, North Carolina, pursuant to an application filed on the
1St day of January of 2005, and in additional correspondence received February 23, 2005, March 17, 2005,
April 29, 2005, June 24, 2005 and July 20, 2005.
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in
writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
404/CAMA Wetlands 0.27 (acres) I Individual Permit Application, . 5
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
River Bend, LLC
Page 3 of 4
August 8, 2005
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/40 1 Permit Application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
Continuing Compliance:
Mr. Harley Dunn and River Bend, LLC, shall conduct construction activities in a manner
consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from
compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements
of State law and federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being
met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is
being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division may
reevaluate and modify this Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance
with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before
modifying the Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. Harley Dunn and/or River Bend, LLC,
and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0504.
Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr. Harley Dunn and/or River Bend, LLC in
writing, shall be provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any
Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions
of the 404 Permit for the project;
Conditions of Certification:
6. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with remaining jurisdictional
wetlands and waters or areas within 50 feet of all streams and ponds. These mechanisms shall be
put in place within 30 days of the date of issuance of the 401 Certification letter or the issuance of
the 404 Permit (whichever is later). A sample deed notification format can be downloaded from
the 401/Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. DWQ shall be sent
copies of all deed restrictions applied to these lots;
Stormwater
7. Construction Stormwater Permit NCG010000
River Bend, LLC
Page 4 of 4
August 8, 2005
Upon the approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan issued by the Division of Land
Resources (DLR) or a DLR delegated local erosion and sedimentation control program, an
NPDES General stormwater permit (NCGO10000) administered by DWQ is automatically issued
to the project. This General Permit allows stormwater to be discharged during land disturbing
construction activities as stipulated by conditions in the permit. If your project is covered by this
permit [applicable to construction projects that disturb one (1) or more acres], full compliance
with permit conditions including the sedimentation control plan, self-monitoring, record keeping
and reporting requirements are required. A copy of this permit and monitoring report forms may
be found at htt-plllr2o.enr.state.itc.cislsiilFornis Docuntents.hon.
8. Written Stormwater Management Plan (Final Plan Needed)
A final, written stormwater management plan (including a signed and notarized Operation and
Maintenance Agreement) shall be submitted to the 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
(2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC, 27604) within 60 days of the issuance of the 401
Water Quality Certification. The stormwater management plans shall be approved in writing by
this Office before the impacts specified in this Certification occur. You have the option of using
the Express Review Program for expedited approval of these plans. If you propose to use the
Express Review Program, remember to include the appropriate fee with the plan. The stormwater
management plan must include plans, specifications, and worksheets for stormwater management
facilities that are appropriate for the surface water classification and designed to remove at least
85% TSS according to the most recent version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual. These facilities must be designed to treat the runoff from the entire project,
unless otherwise explicitly approved by the Division of Water Quality. Also, before any
permanent building is. occupied at the subject site, the facilities (as approved by this Office) shall
be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management plan (as approved by this Office)
shall be implemented. The structural stormwater practices as approved by this Office as well as
drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater
practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CANIA Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If
modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the
modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 8th day of August 2005
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWKIcbk/ytn
?OF W AT F90 Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
May 5, 2005
DWQ Project # 05-0263
Buncombe County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Harley Dunn
Riverbend, LLC
P.O. Box 528
Asheville, NC, 28802
Subject Property: River Bend Business Park
Swannanoa River, 6-78, Class C
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Dunn:
On March 17, 2005, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application to impact 0.27 acres
of wetlands to construct the proposed project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506, a thorough
review has been conducted by staff of the DWQ Asheville Regional Office. Based on this review, we
have determined that significant uses could be removed or degraded by this project. You should note that
we are moving toward denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and will place this
project on hold as incomplete unless the referenced impacts are reduced or eliminated completely.
Additional Information Requested:
1. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
This is a second application for impacts associated with the Riverbend Marketplace, the first of
which was issued September 29, 2003 for impacts to 0.25 acre of wetlands and 872 feet of
streams. At that time, the 0.27-acre wetland location in question was presented by the applicant
as evidence of "avoidance" in the application, and therefore became a condition of the 401
Certification issued for the project. Therefore, the proposed impact directly contradicts your prior
stated plans, would constitute a violation of the existing 401 Certification, and conflicts with 15A
NCAC 2H .0506( c) which addresses avoidance and minimization of impacts. The proposed
impact, should you choose to pursue it, would involve re-opening of the 401, Certification issued
on September 29, 2003 for enforcement action.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in writing
and Kevin Barnett of the DWQ Asheville Regional Office. If we do not hear from you within three
weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o,enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
No One
Carolina
,/ aturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Riverbend Business Park
Page 2 of 2
May 5, 2005
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Mr. Kevin Barnett at the DWQ Asheville Regional
Office at 828-296-4500 or Ms. Cyndi Karoly at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions regarding or
would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Since
of-Ij- rely, /
CBK/cbk
cc:
Kevin Barnett, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
Filename:, 050263RiverBend(Buncombe)HOLD
T 'd SG[10-118tH-01,1a:9WtJN Z6892ZZ6i6:-131 Tb:?'Z flOlJ sno,,:-,-9-tnr

ff?ax
To: Cyndi Karoly From: Clement Riddle
Fax: l ?! 1- /' L ?) 1 7 Pages:
Phone: Date: 6/6/2005
Re: Riverbend CC:
? Urgent ? For Review ? Please Comment ? Please Reply ? Please Recycle
o Comments:
Copy of letter to USACE
dBT:90 SO 90 unC
j•d
Jun 06 05 06:19p
224 Sout'l GrO ve Sleet
SWe F T •
Hencersonvil e, NC 26792
828-693-9800 •
823-698-9003
7
To: Cyndi Karol,, From: Clement Riddle
Fax: Pages:
Phone: Date: 616/2005
Re: Riverbend CC:
? Urgent ? For Review ? Please Comment O Please Reply ? Please Recycle
• Comments:
Copy of letter to USACE
p.2
JUti-6-2'005 PION 17:42 TEL:[phone] NAME: DWO-WETLAIIDS P. 2
2 ,d
S014U113H-0H(1:3WdN 2689221676:131 ctb:LT tiow soo-2-9-[inr
CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA
June 1, 2005
11r. Scott McLendon
US Army Corps Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, INC 28801
RE: River Bend Business Park
USACE Action ID. 200531109
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Dear Scott,
INC.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (USACE) requested information
from River Bend Business Park as permit applicant, in your April 26, 2005 letter. The
letter addresses activities for which the applicant is seeking federal authorization in
connection with the company's proposed mixed-use development in Buncombe County,
North Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to provide the USACE with substantive
responses to the issues raised in your letter, and request that the USACE directly contact
the undersigned should the responses provided in this letter not adequately address their
concerns.
CORPS - In the original Natiomvide Permit request (action ID 200331153), it is out-
understanding that the entire Riverbend Development project was under consideration
and that the subject wetland area would not be impacted by future development
proposals..
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. submitted a Nationwide Permit 39
Application on August 11, 2003 on behalf of Horne Properties, Inc. Horne Properties
purchased Phase I of the property and developed the Super Wal-Mart and other buildings
in Phase I. Horne Properties did not purchase Phase II, as this area was retained by the
original owner. Per Home Properties instructions, ClearWater Environmental
Consultants, Inc., indicated on the permit application (Section V.) that there were no
future permit requests anticipated. Had Clearwater Environmental Consultants been
aware of the separate owners and project purposes, we would have easily identified that
there may be additional permit requests in the future. As this is something we have had
to do on several occasions for other development projects. While it is always preferred to
evaluate a property as one project it is not unusual for large developments projects to be
permitted in phases.
224 South Grove Strect, Suite F
Hendcrsonvdle. North Corolno 28792
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
wwvr.cwenv.coin
E•d d6T=90 SO 90 unC
t7 'd SG[Vd_ 31-0110:3WdN 26892216T6:_E]1 2t7:_T NOW SOON-9-t,nf
There has been no deliberate effort to "piece meal" this project. The applicant requested
a pre-application meeting to discuss Phase II development plans, deliberately stated the
impacts of Phase 1, and offered as part of the application, that they will mitigate for
wetland impacts associated with Phase I and II of the Project.
CORPS - In fact, a review of the permit file indicates that a Deed Notification was
placed on the subject property Hook 3521, pages 127-129, recorded 01-14-2004). It is
our understanding that the propose of this notification ivas to prevent any future filling of
the subject wetland.
The applicant agreed to record a Deed Notification on the remaining wetland as requested
by the Corps. It was understood by River Bend LLC that this action was requested as
part of the Corps Nationwide Permit and that it in no way limited their ability to apply for
a permit in the future. There should be no assumption by the USCAH that the recorded
Deed Notification constitutes preservation-mitigation. No where in the application does
the applicant propose to preserve the wetlands on-site for mitigation. In fact, the
application for Phase 1 stated that there would be no mitigation for the loss of wetlands.
As you :know, projects that use preservation as a mitigation activity are required to record
Restrictive Covenants or Conservation Easements that forever preserve the use of the
subject property. It is the applicant's understanding that the purpose of the Deed
Notification is to notify land owners that they have jurisdictional areas within their
property and will be required to seek authorization from the Corps of Engineers prior to
any impacts in the area. The second sentence of the Deed Notification stating, "Any
subsequent fill or alteration of this area shall conform to the requirements of the state and
federal rules adopted by the State of North Carolina, and the US Army Corps of
Eii-incers at the time of the proposed alteration" clearly implies that it may be the
owners right to apply for authorization to jurisdictional areas.
We believe there should be some recognized benefit of this second application, being that
there is a proposed mitigation plan that account for impacts to wetlands in Phase I and
Phase 11. We believe that the mitigation as modified below not only compensates for the
unavoidable loss of wetlands but exceeds in scope and size the loss.
Mitigation
The applicant searched for mitigation opportunities as discussed in Section 6.0 of the
permit application and they have continued to look for suitable opportunities. To meet
concerns raised by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NC Wildlife
Commission, the applicant is willing to contribute into the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) at a 2:1 ratio for the wetland impacts associated with Phase I and Phase It
(Total payment for 1.4 -acres).
?.d ds1=9o so so unc
S 'd SCRAd-U81-011Q:8WUN 26892216i6:-181 2b:1Z rioi-i soo2-9-tUlr
Summary
The applicant believes that issues raised by the USCAE regarding the proposed
development and any unfortunate misunderstanding with the Deed Notification have been
addressed in this submittal to the USAGE. The applicant also believes the totality of this
information allows the USACE to conclude that the applicant has to the fullest extent
practicable, given the applicants overall project purpose, and to the extent there remain
wetland impacts, they arc unavoidable but have been fully and adequately compensated
for by the applicants Mitigation Plan.
Accordingly, the applicant asks that the USACE issue the requested 404 permit. Should
USACE feel any additional information or clarification of information provided is
required, please contact the undersigned.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Y
C/rr??r r?' i
L A
:
R. Clement Riddle, Y.W.S.
Principal
Cc: Harley Dunn, River Bend LLC
S•d d61=9o So 9o unr

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
June 16, 2005
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 D L`5 J ?'
Raleigh, NC 27604
JUN 2 W 1U[-1
RE: River Bend Business Park
DWQ Project 05-0263 DENR - WAT`EPC 1
tDSn
Buncombe County, North Carolina trDStGrc•",
Dear Ms. Karoly,
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requested information from River
Bend Business Park as permit applicant, in your letter dated May 5, 2005. The letter
addresses activities for which the applicant is seeking authorization in connection with
the company's proposed mixed-use development in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the DWQ with substantive responses to the issues
raised in your letter, and request that the DWQ directly contact the undersigned should
the responses provided in this letter not adequately address their concerns.
DIVQ - This is the second application for impacts associated with the Riverbel;d
Marketplace, the first of which was issued Septentber 29, 2003 for impacts to 0.25 acres
of wetlands and 872 feet of streams. At that time, the 0.27 -acre wetland locatiolt in
question was presented by the applicant as evidence of "avoidance" in the application,
and therefore, then became a condition of the 401 Certification issued for the project.
Therefore, the proposed impact directly contradicts your prior stated plans, would
constitute a violation of the existing 401 Certification, and conflicts with 15A NCAC 2H
.0506(c) which addresses avoidance and minimization of impacts. T,er I'opcseu' = ?l:uct,
should you choose to pursue it, would invoive re-opening of the 401 certification issued
on Septentber 29, 2003 for enforcement action.
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. submitted a Nationwide Permit 39
Application on August 11, 2003 on behalf of Horne Properties, Inc. Horne
Properties purchased Phase I of the property and developed the Super Wal-Mart and
other buildings in Phase 1. Horne Properties did not purchase Phase 11, as this area
was retained by the original owner. Per Horne Properties instructions, ClearWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc., indicated on the permit application (Section V.)
that there were no future permit requests anticipated. Had Clearwater
Environmental Consultants been aware of the separate owners and project purposes,
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com
r ?
we would have easily identified that there may be additional permit requests in the
future. As this is something we have had to do on several occasions for other
development projects. While it is always preferred to evaluate a property as one
project it is not unusual for large developments projects to be permitted in phases.
There has been no deliberate effort to "piece meal" this project. The applicant
requested a pre-application meeting to discuss Phase II development plans,
deliberately stated the impacts of Phase I, and offered as part of the application, that
they will mitigate for wetland impacts associated with Phase I and II of the Project
(even though proposed impacts are below the thresholds that typically require
mitigation).
The applicant agreed to record a Deed Notification on the remaining wetland as
requested by the Corps. It was understood by River Bend LLC that this action was
requested as part of the Corps Nationwide Permit and that it in no way limited their
ability to apply for a permit in the future. There should be no assumption by the
USACE that the recorded Deed Notification constitutes preservation-mitigation.
No where in the application does the applicant propose to preserve the wetlands on-
site for mitigation. In fact, the application for Phase I stated that there would be no
mitigation for the loss of wetlands.
As you know, projects that use preservation as a mitigation activity are required to
record Restrictive Covenants or Conservation Easements that forever preserve the
use of the subject property. It is the applicant's understanding that the purpose of
the Deed Notification is to notify land owners that they have jurisdictional areas
within their property and will be required to seek authorization from the Corps of
Engineers prior to any impacts in the area. The second sentence of the Deed
Notification stating, "Any subsequent fill or alteration of this area shall conform to
the requirements of the state and federal rules adopted by the State of North
Carolina, and the US Army Corps of Engineers at the time of the proposed
alteration" clearly implies that it may be the owners right to apply for authorization
to jurisdietienal areas.
D 1VQ 401 Certification issued September 29, 2003.
This approval is only valid for the purpose described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us in tivriting and you stay be required to send its a new
application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a
copy of the certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre,
compensatory mitigation may be require as described in 15A NCAD 2H.0506 (h).
The applicant is following the guidance from the previous 401 Certification. The
applicant is requesting a change in the layout of Phase II that meets there project
purpose. Therefore, the applicant submitted a new application as required. We also
understand that "if total fills for this project (now or in the, uture) exceed one acre
V
compeusatoiy 17utigatlon niay be required'. This statement suggests that it is
within the applicant's ability to submit an applicant for a change in plans in Phase
II.
Mitigation
As stated above in the NC DWQ 401 Certification, mitigation for wetland impacts
is typically not required when total impacts are less than one acre of wetland.
However, the applicant has included wetland mitigation for Phases 1 and 2 as
discussed below. The applicant searched for mitigation opportunities as discussed
in Section 6.0 of the permit application and they have continued to look for suitable
opportunities. To meet concerns raised by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the NC Wildlife Commission, the applicant is willing to contribute into the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) at a 2:1 ratio for the wetland impacts
associated with Phase I and Phase II (Total payment for 1.4 -acres).
We believe there should be some recognized benefit of this second application,
being that there is a proposed mitigation plan that account for impacts to wetlands
in Phase I and Phase II. We believe that the mitigation as modified below not only
compensates for the unavoidable loss of wetlands but exceeds in scope and size the
loss.
Summary
The applicant believes that issues raised by the DWQ regarding the proposed
development have been addressed in this submittal to the DWQ. Accordingly, the
applicant asks that the DWQ issue the requested 401 permit. Should DWQ feel any
additional information or clarification of information provided is required, please contact
the undersigned.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
? R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
cc: Harley Dunn, River Bend LLC
Detailsl. , DelaiLs2 Permits and Certs 'Cross Refs Impacts 1 Mitigations Fees ; Afiliations Event Inspection; Comments ;History
Project Number. 20050263 Version: 1 Status: On Hold Last ActionDesc: Incomplete App-Additional Info r. Save
Project Name: River Bend Business Park Project Type: Industrial /Commercial/ Busines PrimaryCounty: Buncombe
Last Updated fay'-Tlmestamp 'Comment Text
?vin barnett 07110!2005 Meeting wdh Harley Dunn (Partner Rlverbend LLC) Clement Riddle (Inv_Con ultanp-and_..
I
Zvleetmg with Harley Dunn (Partner, Riverbend LLC), Clement Riddle (Env.
Consultant) and myself at 8 30AM in ARO. With 2.1 rrutigation for all wetland
unpacts on site (including those for Home Properties permitted under
the same name) and stormwater management, the Ash^rille Regional Office
has no issue with issuing this authorization. --t1-1B
Remove f
Finish Cancel I
2 Comments Ready SID. WPEV
J
CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
March 11, 2005
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Centre
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RC: River Bend Business Park, Phase II
DWQ Project No: 05-0263
Buncombe County, NC
Dear Cyndi,
U
MAR Z 7 200,5
??JR - `` `??sAf,D WATER
Q UAL ITy
i
This letter and attachment provides the additional information as requested by the NC
Division of Water Quality on March 2, 2005 for the River Bend Business Park, Phase
II in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
1. Plug Details. - Full size (2406) plan sheet is attached.
a. The project impervious area is greater than 50 percent. A stormwater
management plan was submitted for Phase I and II by Wolverton and
Associates in February 2004. Pond 4 of the submitted plan is designed to
handle stormwater runoff from Phase II. The approved stormwater plan for
Pond 4 was based on a drainage area of 14.3 acre and an impervious area of 7.2
acres. (See attached information)
Stormwater Pond 4 (See sheet C-213 Attached) was based on a conceptual
development plan which is still being refined. However, the impervious area of
the final plan should be approximately the same impervious area (greater than
50%). In any event, upon approval of the 401 Certification, it is the intent of the
applicant, to redesign the stormwater management for Phase II. This redesign
will try and use other stormwater management techniques such as biofilters in
addition to a smaller pond in the same location on the northeastern corner of the
property. The stormwater management facilities will be designed to meet the
guidelines set forth in the Stormwater Best Management Practices, NCDENR
1999.
Please issue the requested 401 certification with a condition requiring written
approval from DWQ of the final stormwater plan for Phase II prior to any
impacts in the jurisdictional wetland areas.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com
b. Please address whether there are airy jurisdictional waters present in the draw
along the northeast property line.
The only jurisdictional area on Phase II is shown on the submitted site plan.
The US Army Corps of Engineers verified the jurisdictional limits of Phase I
and Phase II on September 2, 2003. A copy of the survey plat is attached.
The 0.27 acre jurisdictional area is the only remaining jurisdictional area for
the Phase I and Phase II project site. The other jurisdictional areas shown on
the attached survey were impacted in Phase I of the project. Attached is a
copy of the DWQ 401 Certification for Phase I dated September 29, 2003.
2. Public Notice - The Public Notice was published by the US Army Corps of
Engineers on February 18, 2005. Copy attached.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or
comments regarding this submittal.
Sincerely,,,
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
cc: Kevin Barnett, DWQ
Harley Dunn, River Bend
oSa2G3
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF: April 26, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID. 200531109
Mr. Harley Dunn
Riverbend, LLC
Post Office Box 528
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Dear Mr. Dunn:
p
APR 2 9 2005
DENR - 6%ATc"R QUALITY
1','ETIANDSfd.D STCR-1ra; iTER 62,X6
Reference is made to the Public Notice dated February 18, 2005 in which we described
your proposal to discharge fill material into 0.27 acres of wetlands to complete Phase II of the
Riverbend Business Park adjacent to the Swannanoa River in Asheville, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. In response to that Public Notice, we received comments from the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (copies enclosed). These
comments reflect their concern over the additional impacts to wetlands that are being requested
under the current application. We share their concerns that additional fill is being requested in
an area that was specifically avoided when the original Nationwide Permit was verified for Phase
I of the project.
In the original Nationwide Permit request (Action ID 200331153), it was our understanding
that the entire Riverbend Development project was under consideration and that the subject
wetland area would not be impacted by any future development proposals. Specifically, the
August 11, 2003 application states: "Impacts were minimized by avoiding the majority of the
largest wetland, Wetland A and a portion of the intermittent stream. The original designs
proposed impacts to this wetland; however, the applicant is willing to remove this area from
development which resulted in the loss of 0.75 acres of developable area." In fact, a review of
the permit file indicates that a Deed Notification was placed on the subject property Book 3521,
pages 127-129, recorded 01-14-2004). It is our understanding that the purpose of this
notification was to prevent any future filling of the subject wetland.
As you may be aware, the 404 (b) (1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) provide that "no
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as
the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences". Inasmuch
as the original permit application indicated that the project under consideration was a single and
complete project, we must insist that you provide information that supports your contention that
now the remaining wetland area must be filled to allow successful completion of the project.
2
You should be aware that we consider this to be a matter of some importance; unless the
requested information adequately addresses our concerns, we may have no choice but to deny
your request.
If you have further questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Ms. Rebekah
Newton at [phone] extension 232.
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Chief, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copy furnished (w/out enclosures)
Mr. Clement Riddle
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc
224 S. Grove Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Mrs. Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Kevin Barnett
ITC Division of Water Quality
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Barnett. Kevin
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor: Forrest Westall
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name River Bend Business Park
Project Number 05 0263
Recvd From APP
Received Date 2/10/05 Recvd By Region
Project Type business park
County Buncombe
County2
Region Asheville
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
IP PT _TN F- 6-78 I `- 40,302. 0.27 F
Q Y O N F__Ir F??-? ?-
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? Q Y 0 N Did you request more info? Q Y * N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? QQ Y O N
Is Mitigation required? oQ Y O N Recommendation: Q Issue O Issue/Coed 0 Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 353427
Longitude (ddmmss) 823041
Comments:
ARO recommends denial of this prQJect as the wetland in question was permitted as preservation in
aprevious WO Cert, for this facility. - KHB
cc: Regional Office Page Number 1
Central Office
Facility Name River Bend Business Park
Project Number 05 0263
Comments (continued from page 1):
County Buncombe
Regional Contact: Barnett, Kevin
Date:
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 2
Triage Check List
Date: 3/28/05 Project Name: River Bend Business Park
DWQ#: 05-0263
Kevin Barnett, Asheville Regional Office County: Buncombe
To: 60-day Processing Time: 3/17/05 to 5115105
Note this is an IP. Public Notice enclosed along with original
submittal and new info received in Central.
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being for`varded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern

Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
P
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action Id. 200331152 County Buncombe Quad ASHEVILLE
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
?D
D
Property owner/Authorized Agent: Horne Properties, Incorporated, Attn: Michael Patterson MAR Y 7 2005
Address: 412 N. Cedar Bluff Road Suite 205 Knoxville, TN 37923-3609 II ? - ATER QUALi
Telephone Number: [phone] STO;LtIl "ATE1 &R ,`rH
Zone: 44 UTM or LAT/LONG: North: 3937803 East: 637037
Size and Location of Property(waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): an unnamed tributary to the Swannanoa River
and adjacent wetlands located wwithin a 78 acre parcel located off of Highway 81 in Asheville, Buncombe County, North
Carolina.
Indicate Which of the following apply:
There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed.
The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final jurisdictional
determination on your property.
Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your wetlands
cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to employ a consultant to obtain a more timely
delineation of the wetlands. Once your consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property, Corps staff will review
it, and, if it is accurate, we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval by the Corps. The
Corps will not make a final jurisdictional determination on your property without an approved survey.
X The waters of the United States on your parcel have been delineated, and the limits of Corps jurisdiction have
been explained to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may
be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed three years from the date of this notification.
The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army permit is in
most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is not required for work
on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact David K- Baker at [phone] x 6.
Property owner/Authorized Agent Signature Project Manager Signature
David K. Baker
Date Expiration Date -9-2-08-
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM.
THE WETLAND
CESAw Form 566
1 OCT92
ox
fls z« ? ? ? f.
?_"
= FI 4 •_
?Al

i ;
--J
Q1?? v
J
V;< Qv-
o p??)
''ter/i? O
71 7 iS
7
U-4 ; R
z ?Y '^ Rv
z
A4 RRaMD A M „[ODt®a M YT. u?f9 1,[; t ? o?K[
?iM w 4 Cw• «ap,p ?aVAVe M aLrrAV, ? frtltt
...mrw ... „ ? as ro. yrom .o. ro ?m .K csl
nw >.e ax we NNa VW+ac us ,.T
m.s v dame tWA,o m.?.o ..+.a

GRAPHIC SCALE
400 0 20D .a0
e0D TYSINGER &
• - { PARTNERS, PLLC
3 Solutions for the Futurr
712 N = I Inch 400 IL ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS
° n PLANNERS -GEOLOGISTS
3428 BRISTOL HWY.
JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE 37601
[phone]
[phone] Fax
tnpOtysinger-engineHSng.cOm
nttP://www.ty5inger-engneerinq.c0m

:,. wA ?• °„ ," 4+yt, SURVEY FOR
N-4.1 's„
o HORNS
?e
- PROPERTM

\
1 1 SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF
RIM BE
(I u ` ND
BUS
ENEM PARK
P.I. N. g 9658.15-52-4618
?q'
?? `
?' c 1
c WARD 7 ASHEVILLE TWP.
`•
It BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C.
REF. D.D. 1838-PG. 612

[t < DRAIITNG TITLE
Ems` [i ,
WETLANDS
IDCATI
ON
SURVEY

- W s I s s ^ s REV. - ADDED DITCH MOTHS AND
- CHANCED DITCH CENTER LINE. 7/18/03.
ns o ?^ 8= R° $° ISSUE DATE
z ??8 z^ z •- z z z z z" `\?\?
CARO'p?A CAD FILE : 0221501s-wetfwds.dwq
aO a° •
i
Ee
?``
`ma
??
s7o
04
y
O SCALE 1'«400' DWG. NO.

L Pop! K. DOWEPS OERTIY THAT MIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY
SUI?rRWSION
IROU AN ACTUAL S
MADE UNDER YT 9JPEWSKN SEAL
•r L-3892
7 3 ? DRAWN RKT
NG
TINA THE S
MAT THE SURVEY K OF AN ExSTWG PARCEL OR PMCOS OF SAND .
'.4 a•- ` CHECK RKD OZZ1 JO1S
AND DOES NOT CREATE A NEW STRUT OR CHANCE AN EMTR1G
STPM
MAT TRS P
T
.
LA
WAS PREPAPM M ACCORDANCE MM C
G.S. 47-30 AS AYpmED. WTNESS YT ORONAL S(NAtURE. REGISTRATION t DATE 7/IO/03
NUMBER AND SEAL TRS 10 DAY Dr Al y AD.. 2003 Y 11111111\\\' '1
Ft6u?E S
s?t t of 4

.j i
RIVER BEND BUSNESS PARK
TRACT I
D.B. 1&38-PG. 612
\",e' E1
WATER Ell
T_
,• e

d?
ry
\ t
\aJ
TYSINGER &
PARTNERS, PLLC
Solutions for the Future
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
PLANNERS •GEOLOGISTS
3428 BRISTOL HWY.
JOHNSON GTY, TENNESSEE 37601
[phone]
[phone] rAx
thpOtysinW-engineering. cam
http: //-.tysi.ger--gn,,ing.c-

/ / /,? E13
A5 `
AI
AS
Al ?? L9E Q?Q?
?
?

/
A7
/ }
"
3 ?W4ft A, A
RS !?{ vM@?S ww11.6 m.s M.U.?YAr mK3M
-/ O• MJb1 K JJR4b V IICWI .WOK 6(M rO ACI

/

toNc. MOK AZ5

At
r--. ?/
A10 - '
\

N6 no M uc Wn oc'nr•nw .s N.rt Inamc n( .w1
! HAD
Cwf O O:o@3 <IlM 06Y/.w: ww.
'e
/ / . A23
... ?(?. M LE.
6- 9
E 99596107
8
w
a
6
Ug
U) 0
U8 ?
x r
a
e
8
COW_ All -.. _' A 0 ? el 9y.? :
Au ?,ov fA ?.??pll.lCl1A17R•0
.
/ A14 ,f?! 1i? ? pQL•O4 ES=AO :/1' i
63 A19 A16 7.0(r SEAL
/ / - 1? l R10( 11 DO S, CER- 711AT -S RAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MT ?r L-3892
115 / 2 AI6 SUPERMSIOH FROM AN ACTUAL "BEY MADE UNDER MY SU70C OAI
+
E23 A17 THAT T1f SIL"Y IS OF AN EITSTNC PARCEL OR PARCELS 6 LAND i (1 •• O t
/ T _ E22 AND DOES NOT CREATE A NEW STREET OR CNNf4E Nf pQ$TRIO
/ E2- 86 T WETLAND-6 MATCHUNE STREET: THAT MS RAT WAS PREPARED M ACCEROANCE W
G5. 47-30 AS MENDED. WITNESS MY ORIGNAL SIGNATURE. REQSTRARON N
MMXQ AND SEAL THS _JIL DAY OF ?Y- AD.. 2003 E A IIIIItt 'J /??
SURVEY FOR
HORNE
PROPER=
SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF
RIVER BEND
BUSINESS PARK
P.LN.# 9658.15-52-4618
WARD 7 ASHEVILLE TWP.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C.
REF. D.D. 1838-PG. 612
DRAVING TTT1.B ::
WETLANDS
LOCATIION
REV. _ SURVEY ADDED DITCH SAND
CHANCED DITCH CENTER LINE, 7118/01
ISSUE DATE :
CAD FIE : 02215079-Wetlonds.d-g
SCALE : 1•-100' DWC. NO.
DRAWN RKT
CHECK RKB 0221501S
DATE : 7/10/03
F(6LARt 9 SH 2 of 4
21.62'
/I

4N OSSE'CS• W?
?` // /
S
E26
` 3 ELY
Ev *NY.,
- - - - - - - ------- ------- TYSINGER &
MATCHLINE
RIVER BEND BUSINESS PARK
ND-D TRACT I 11
D.8. 1838--PG. 612
NQ ,DIWrl WT 4610. O M AUT K1114AT OOCTf ?(
Q?D? 1?6.1?.D u n6 YL u.LSl 19? 6. d/wR
PARTNERS, PLLC
Solutions for the Future
ENGINEERS- SURVEYORS
PLANNERS -GEOLOGISTS
3428 ORISTCL HWY.
JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE 37601
[phone]
[phone] FAX
thp0tysn9 er-m g n eering. com
http://..W.tysnger-mgileerinq.can
F
.;?
SURVEY MR
r HORNE
PROPERTIES
8 SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF
BENI)
RIVER
BUSINESS PARK
W P.I.N.# 9658.15-52-4618

a WARD 7 ASHEVILLE TWP.
U BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C.
° REF. D.B. 1838-PG. 612
UR ?
x .C DRAWING TmE

WETLANW
C7 ILDCATION
SURVEY
REV. - ADDED DITCH TADTHS AND
CHANGED DITCH CENTER LINE. 7/18/03.
8
ISSUE DATE :
\\\\\t11C1 ? CAD FILE : 0221501s-.etfwds.d.9
\
• ? i i
C
"
"
'
WC
NO
`
OQ-.oF E32j
. -1DO
SCALE : 1 .
.
D

- SEAL - DRAVM : RKT
L-3892 ?•
o. CHECK RKB 0221501S
' ? . 3utIN?:
DATE : 7/10/03
L 7 jr / FI(>URE S SH 3 of 4
E30
0311
D12
D6
..OT cs _ Em D7
O 1
N C2 WETLAND-C
? i
i
RpW
I'm
E FXK K gov"S, CERTIFY THAT THIS PUT WAS DRANK UNDER MY
S)pERNS10N MOM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UH" MY SUPS RW"
THAT THE SURVEY IS OF AN EOSTNG PARCEL CR PARCELS DF LAND
A AND DOES NOT CREATE A NEW STREET OR CHANGE AN EXISTING
STREET: THAT MS RAT WAS PREPARED N AOCORDANCE NTH
6S. 47-30 AS AMEHOED. NTNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
t,", n° NIMDER AND SEAL THUS -11. DAY Q .. Y AD.. 2003
1
WETLAND - 8
PIN MG
NIMAt
I gSTANC(
Ell 34 62'
02
11
89'
S3 h .
19
84
27
BS 3346'
41 97
1
4 .
0.015 Ac.t
WETLAND - C
RN MG
NUNBEA EtA c DISTANCE
C1
'
'
49'
0
C2 3t
S 8652
E
- W .
2
50
36'
C3 N 065603
' .
4
31'
C. W
N 443630
'
- .
2
1
54'
C5 w
N 7475
40
' .
2
13 27
C6 5 345519
w
'
-
61'
19
C7 S 1016
31
W
S 4214'44' E .
1e
90'
1
9- E
7
' .
15'
35
C1 1
S
9
2 .
0.078 Ac.t
WETLAND - D
PN FLAG
."am BEARNG DISTANCE
D1
'
'49' E
29
65'
D2 S 31
48
'
' .
'
D3 S 2934
23
E
.
' 14.55
7
3r
04 47
S 6619
E
'
"
' 1
.
75'
DS 15
30
E
S 59
'
'
' 18.
83'
06 49
34
N 69
E
'
- 14.
7
'
07 N 73
0509
E
7
04
- 28.
1
31
91'
D6 N
174
3
E
'
- .
'
D9 N 7775
W
02
3" W
6
'
' 26.58
2092'
D10 41
S
5
2
5
" W .
25
28'
071 S 88^
12
'
'
" .
'
D12 W
N 55
45
18
'
' 41.09
'
D13 N 2716
39
w
'
- 15.25
71'
14
014 01
W
N 6214
' W
5 .
07
5
D1
S 461
36
.
0.040 Ac.t
TYSINGER &
GENERAL NOTES PARTNERS, PLLC
1.- TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION IS A SohnionS for ibc FurJrc
COMBINATION OF FIELD RUN TOPO AND
INFORMATION TAKEN FROM AERIAL SURVEY ENGINEERS- SURVEYORS
PROVIDED BY TUCK ENGINEERING PLANNERS -GEOLOGISTS
P 0. BOX 760 3429 BRISTOL HWY.
1928 WILDCAT RD. JOHNSON CITY. TENNESSEE 37601
BIG STONE GAP. VA. 24219 [phone]
[phone] FAX
2.- VERTICAL DATUM NGVO 29. thp"ing -engin"rng. com
httP://-R-tnnger-e gneerng. com
SURVEY FOR
HORNE
PROPERTIES
SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF
RIVER BEND
M mw,a 1?,T M m.. 4. M RAT Nnl1.1R. tx.c+s K BUSINESS PARK
P.I.N.# 9658.15-52-4618
WARD 7 ASHEVILLE TWP.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY. N. C.
?- REF. D.B. 1838-PG. 612
w : DRAWING TTTT.E
WETLANDS
CATION
IA

t N R. ecal m Cu TWAT -S RAT .AT M.- S
C
ICY SUPCRV51d1
4
IO SURVEY
S " S c7' AR µ CST.w
OR P
T TIC a
PARCEL
THAT aa. K NS C A1Kas or
rro wo
AM f%ii T AIIC1ll W
dl OuNt
pe51M0
AN
REV - ADDED DITCH NDT14S AND
Tma7: TWAT TS AW PL . WAS R `
T4
AcCpmANCL ..
A ..*TS .1 NY OADIK SKauIVQ: IQOS1AAt1b1
GS 41-30 AS A447ZD CHANCED DITCH CENTER LANE. 7/18/03.
.
NAAlEN A.o SEAL to 10 oAr M Ur_ An_ mw
ISSUE DATE
SS
iA
` CAR
T CAD FlLE 0221501s-.tltands.dwg
? ••
O
'?.
RAC
p?.af 0S 17o ..?iy SCALE NONE DWG. NO.

- SEAL ?' DRAWN . RKT
L-3892
y
?= CHECK : RKD
0221501S
SUR?.• ??

° ?/
f
DATE 7/10/03
*^°
? F16k26 5 SH 4 of 4

.. t
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: February 18, 2005
Comment Deadline: March 18, 2005
Corps Action ID M 200531109
All interested parties are herby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps)
has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United States. Specific
plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans. This
Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site at
www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands
Applicant: River Bend LLC, Harley Dunn
16 Governor's View Road
Asheville, NC 28802
AGENT (if applicable): ClearMater Environmental Services, Inc., Clement Riddle
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally issue, or
deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures. This application is being considered
for approval pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
Location
The project site, known as the River Bend Business Park, is located east of Interstate 240,
approximately one mile east of Tunnel Road in East Asheville, Buncombe County, North
Carolina at the old Sayles-Biltmore Bleachery site. The project site contains wetlands and is
adjacent to the Swannanoa River. The site is bordered by the Swannanoa River to the north, by
the River Ridge Shopping Center to the south, and by Interstate 240 to the west.
Existing Site Conditions
The project site consists of cleared land, nearly all of which was altered in some manner by the
ownership of the Sayles-Biltmore Bleachery. The site contains one, 0.27-acre jurisdictional
forested wetland. This freshwater wetland is a seepage and stormwater influenced habitat.
There is no dominant overstory within the wetland. The dominant mid-story scrub-shrub stratum
consists of black willow (Salix nigra), and silver maple with an herbaceous layer of soft rush
(Juncus effuses). This wetland drains towards the Swannanoa River through a culvert, which
was previously permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers during the development of the
R .?
River Ridge Shopping Center. The North Carolina Department of Water Quality classifies the
Swannanoa River as C Waters. No named or unnamed tributaries are located on the property.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
As stated by the applicant, the purpose of this project is the urban re-development of a former
Superfund site that will create a high-density mixed use urban community that includes
residential living, retail shopping, and dining.
Project Description
Phase I of this project was recently developed by Horne Properties. During Phase I of the project
Horne Properties obtained a Section 404 permit on October 15, 2004 and a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification on September 29, 2003 to impact 0.41 acres of jurisdictional area;
specifically, 0.25 acres of wetlands and 790 linear feet of intermittent and aquatically
unimportant stream.
The applicant is proposing Phase II of this project, which includes 96,000 square feet of
commercial development, 176 apartment condominiums, and 84 individual town homes.
Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of material will be used to fill the 0.27-acre jurisdictional
wetland and bring it up to grade with the adjacent development pad.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate State
agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt of the application and
this public notice in the NCDWQ Central Office in Raleigh serves as application to the NCDWQ
for certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for
certification within sixty days of the date of the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central
Office. Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at
the NCDWQ Central Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in writing
delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Attention: Ms Cyndi Karoly by
March 14, 2005.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places
and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion
therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the proposed work. Presently,
unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be located within the
project area and/or could be affected by the proposed work.
2

Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and
consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information,
the Corps has determined pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, that the proposed
project will have no effect on federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally
designated critical habitat.
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The
benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against
its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife
values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the
impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental
Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials;
Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this
proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine
whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision,
comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality,
general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also
used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a
public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall be
granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial or there is
otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
3
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, March 14, 2005. Comments should
be submitted to Ms. Rebekah L. Newton, US Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton Avenue,
Room 208, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.
Distribution:
Hard Copy w/ all application materials
Cyndi Karoly, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Hard Copy w/ any attachments necessary to meet requirements of 325.3 (plans, drawings,
wetland/stream information, etc.)
2 Doug Huggett, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, Hestron Plaza II 151B,
Highway 24, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
4
River Bend Business Park
Buncombe County,
North Carolina
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Strect, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
?? .. rr _yr
A41 A
00
n`;;? '/,11111nuln?rli?ili?ll?lliui?il?lu??l?????, ?u
Proposed Wetland Impact
0.27 acres
Interstate 240
RIVER BEND BUSINESS PARK
PHASE II
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C.
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
WETLAND IMPACT MAP
FIGURE 2

River Bend AshevlUe Quadrangle 01/11105 Figure I
2 WiV'V4

roiect

oc-O.•wV rv u[°so.ooo• w WGS04 82129.000' w
?• ?.n„ \ .? 1;'? ,_- J ` :X '"r i .. ? it ? ? i '
? ?') F' - l u; i; is `, L i'+ • i ? it:? \%
y r i' r y
?4y., ? rs ? ?? ,? 1 t • •,,,?? ??. / ?, ? fir-{(' i ?• z
T '. .,? V1 (?A ?C^"r} ?l . ?C ?, 1 , ? ?A '.s.?../ 1???• \ ? , =f? '1(Nit ? • .ra? .+?,t _• .....,?.
?' :F 2
4! ? M
C 2
f b
a
( , M
.? 1
82.32.000' W 62131.000'W 82.30.000' W WG58402°29.000' W

d' QIaDfUt ! Kq ?Q)Jlt(RRS
CLEARWATER
River Bend Business Park Environmental Consultants, Inc. USGS Topographic Map
Buncombe County 224 South Grove Strect, Suite F Figure 3
North Carolina Hendcrsonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800

NEV PIPE 00) / EXIST. GROUND
PROPOSED FILL
Wetlands TYPICAL SECTION
MT.&
Figure 4

r..•.:: his .F:! IrY'?`? B verS Hi4 I
Waw Creak ' ?t;r•.r• r•srl{rl?rf' err ..3a•r•t
` /i,?FLFti?Fi?FI?%F=ff?F1?; •'''?f}: :ft:'' t
ir?r<FrLIiF` ryy p.r p.rS) Zrjjre 5
f•- ;f•.r r r -
As v lle!^
'r<) ')r? rtr<)r?2r< rj:r rj)r<i •_ Y.
Mail a {i? '(Frffi?L!! ?'tfi k r<`i SiiFj? 4p'r ,?p. r s G ?j i t
, r Lr;ir.i'it,``Vry?r ri!r rrsr r tit ?. ? Y7 'r1.
1 •.r ?i r< rjviihi!<.r f< r rj.rr? Y v + •ti+?'? '? , t- t J.
`-t ' 'r tr F?)F?? C~i+li?: i4Cil?i fr kr•'71`'Y ?.jY?'>`tisv?i l[ . t-? S ?'?yy t t t
j `r'`r<:ri;ri;i< r<, rt <.x?cwt ,1r'4'? +e. ysa >••? ?'t? 'Ytt rY
1) ,i?j )r.) t)rj;rU ;?' ? .y 1F?' ?, iM??`'?tJS 1 F ?•Fi ?7 ? ;
kIa Kbnilworth Approximate
Dam Site Bounds
M.Mpal
Golf Couts
Ji f i J ),j LF< :fj ^j Va•J?r??'T ^(.'??4?. ????:?,,,/ t
1 -,. ,t4 9 '9 Sa es lager, ri` j'k
14,
.rnl \ ? i ik I•, t .fir ; .? ? <. ;? ?j}yr???I, ? 'ti.
'I M ? rt`r?`fji ?4ri "J •1'
%
t ??.)rj)r<)r<)r<)r<, f<)ri `rev ? 3:<, .ir<
?t\ ? irStF'ti'??? ? ?/: "!tF<?f';:f3,'.f'•iri.
r •r•!rf;•r
., `• `, II t
Oakley
_'1 ,1 1t t t?, '<?Fjf F?fr? ,?j?f( rt'• 1 j• ?-
5 ?r r t _
r,e
?t Ij,ry jIj)fj !j`
• `Irya i• • •, •,I 1
•t i •i', •i•ii'ii=• ?, '? '
iltmore t 1
? t
.?? t I - ` f• rl
aso uca,t?....w,o m
Clearwater Horne Properties, Inc. August 2003
Environmental Riverbend Marketplace N.T.S.
Consultants 83012.001
Sit© Location Map Figure Q 5
A.
. VV
`o?OF AT ?AQG
r >_ ? '1
Michael F_ Pinsky, Governor
Wil'.iaaa Q• Ross Jr.. Seaetuy
North Carolina Dcparuncat of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Dire=
Division of Water Quality
Cotten N. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
February 17, 2004
Mr. Todd Seldomridge
Wolverton and Associates, Inc.
5300 Oakbrook Parkway
Suite 150
Norcross, Georgia 30093
Dear Mr. Seldomridge;
RE: Revised stormwater plan for Riverbend Marketplace project
DWO # 03-0992
Buncombe County
REf;EIVED
"ER 2 3 2004
"?1',Vb&A
On February 4, 2004, the Division of Water Quality received your plans for the
stormwater plan for the Riverbend Marketplace project. These plans are acceptable to DWQ
with the following addition::
1. A signed Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be requirod for this area.
2. Please provide assurance as to the timing for the construction of Pond Number 4 so
it is in place and functioning before any permanent building is occupied at the multi-
family site.
I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
FDornoy U MAR 1 !?#
OFh, r0OS
S
Cc: File copy Si,1tQU?,
Central files
DWQ Asheville Regional Off Ice
Michael Patterson, Horno Properties, Inc., Cedar Bluff Office Park, 412 N. Cedar
Bluff Road, Suite 205, Knoxville, TN $7923.3609

a&
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh. North Cuolina 27699.1617 [phone] C? tc Service
Permit No.
(to 5e provided 5y DW0)
`
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORNMATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form may be photocopied ibr use as an original
DWQ Stormwater Management Plan Review
A complete stotmwater management plan submittal includes an application form. a wet detention basin
supplement for each basin, design calculations. and pians and specifications showing all basin and outlet
structure details. `
1. PROJECT INFORALATION
Project Name: IIJEe-!?EM ,D MA-9-'c.'o-r-
Contact Person: _ li a r>r? C-z ro rz ?C - Phone Number: ( -7-7e 1 ?y?- ? 4Q 4
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this v. orksheet applies to: rd '
elevations
Basin Bottom Elevation Zo S i • o ft.
Permanent Pool Elevation 2C+ f? o . o ft.
Temporary Pool Elevation Zo 6 (• (' ft.
areas
Permanent Pool Surface Area t 3 , Z3S sq.:?.
Drainage Area 1 .3 ac.
Impervious Area 7-2- ac.
volumes
Permanent Pool Volume
Temporary Pool Volume
Forebay Volume
Other parameters
SA/DA I
Diameter of Orifice
30, Suer cu. ft.
210 ,29Z cu. ?t.
E S4-L cu. ft.
Z•OGo
Z•5 in
Design Rainfall
Design TSS Removal =
f in.
$s qo
(floor of the basin)
(eievarzon of'the orifzce)
(elevarion of'the discharge structure overflow)
(warer surface area at the orifice elevation)
(on--, ire and off-site drainage to the basin)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(combined volume of main basin and forebav)
(volume detained above the permanent pool)
(approximately 200% of total volume)
(surfce area o drauzage area ratio from DWO table)
.0 -
5 day temporary pool draw-down requirea)
(minimum -?% required)
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99 °^oe 1 of
Footnotes:
t When using the Division SA/DA tables, the correct SAiDA ratio for permanent pool sizing should be computed based upon the
actual impervious % and permanent pooi depth. Linear inrerpolatton should be emploved to determine the correct value for non-
standard table entries.
'- In the 20 coastal counties, the requirement for a vezvative filter may be waived if the wet detention basin is designed to provide
90% TSS removal. The NCDENR BMP manual provides desien tables for both 35°.16 TSS removal and 901,'o TSS removal.
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
The following checklist outlines design requirements per the Stonnwater Best iVlanagement Practices ;Manual
(N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. February 1999) and Administrative Code
Section: 15 A NCAC 2H .1008.
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supportinLy
documentation is attached. If the applicant has designated an went in the Stormwater ivfanagement Permit
Application Form, the agent may initial below. If a requirement has not been met, attach justification.
Applicants Initials
? a. The permanent pool depth is between 3 and 6 feet (required minimum of 3 feet).
i
b.
The forebav volume is approximately equal to 20% of the basin volume.
f c. The temporary pool controls runoff from the design storm event

?
d. .
The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days. v
'V /r4 e. If required, a 30-foot vegetative filter is provided at the outlet (include non-erosive flow
calculations)
f. The basin length to width ratio is Greater than 3:1.
The basin side slopes above the permanent pool are no steeper than 3:1.
/V /X h. A submerged and vegetated perimeter shelf with a slope of 6:1 or less (show detail).
? i. Vegetative cover above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
j. A trash rack or similar device is provided for both the overflow and orifice.
k. A recorded drainage easement is provided for each basin including access to nearest right-
of-way. [ PRA P oSC-D ?A?E,kcyT S 1 fa t? t/ o,v P 4, rv
? 1. If the basin is used for sediment and erosion control during construction, clean out of the
basin is specified prior to use as a wet detention basin.
? m. A mechanism is specified which will drain the basin for maintenance or an emersencv.
III. NVET DETENTION BASIN OPERATION.UND yLAIlVTENANCE AGREE VLENT
The wet detention basin system is defined as the %vet detention basin, pretreatment including forebavs and the
vegetated filter if one is provided. v
This system (check one) 0 does does not incorporate a vegetated filter at the outlet.
This system (check one) 0 does does not incorporate pretreatment other than a forebav.
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99 page 2 of-
Maintenance activities shall be performed as follows:
After every significant runoff producing rainfall event and at least monthly:
a. Inspect the wet detention basin system for sediment accumulation. erosion, trash accumulation,
vegetated cover, and general condition.
b. Check and clear the orifice of any obstructions such that drawdown of the temporary pool occurs within
2 to 5 days as designed.
2. Repair eroded areas immediately, re-seed as necessary to maintain good vegetative cover, mow vegetative
cover to maintain a maximum height of six inches. and remove trash as needed. V
3. Inspect and repair the collection system (i.e. catch basins, piping, swales, riprap, etc.) quarterly to maintain
proper functioning.
-t. Remove accumulated sediment from the wet detention basin system semi-annuaily or when depth is
reduced to 75° o of the original design depth (see diagram below. Removed sediment shall be disposed of
in an appropriate manner and shall be handled in a manner that will not adversely impact water quality (i.e.
stockpiling near a wet detention basin or stream, etc.).
The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such that it will Jive an accurate
depth reading and not readily penetrate into accumulated sediments.
When the permanent pool depth reads 2•7-?; feet in the main pond, the sediment shall be removed.
When the permanent pool depth reads Z•ZS feet in the forebay, the sediment shall be removed.
BASL I DUGRAIM
Ull in the blanks)
Permanent Pool Elevation 7Z&O.0
Sediment Re, oval E1. 7 0 S-7 ?<; 75 'o A
-------------- Sediment Removal Elevation ZoS7• 7`s 1750'
Bottom E1e a[ion ZG57 •C j o -------------------------------------------- --
Bottom Elevation 7,0 S ?•O
FOREBAY
.MALN POND
Remove cattails and other indigenous %vedand plants .when the, cover 50°0 of the basin surface. These
plants shall be encouraged to grow along the vegetated shelf and forebay berm.
6. If the basin must be drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance. the flushing of sediment throush
the emergencv drain shall be minimized to the maximum extent practical.
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99 Pare 3 of=
Storm Water Management Permit Application - Narrative
Riverbend Marketplace
Asheville, NC
DWQ#0-0992
The proposed project consists of an approximately 59 acre retail commercial
development (Phase 1) owned by Horne Properties, Inc. and an approximately
15 acre future urban village development (Phase 2) owned by Riverbend
Development. All of Phase 1 and the rough grading and utility infrastructure for
Phase 2 will be developed by Horne Properties at this time. The complete build-
out of Phase 2 will be developed by the property owner, Riverbend Development.
The ACOE granted approval to fill 797 linear feet of intermittent streams, 75
linear feet of perennial streams and 0.25 acres of wetlands in order to construct
this project known as Riverbend Marketplace in Asheville, NC. A condition of
that approval was to submit a written storm water management plan and have it
approved by NCDENR Division of Water Quality.
The storm water management plan for this project will consist of a series of
ditches, curbs and storm sewer pipes that will collect storm water runoff from the
development described above and direct it into 4 wet detention ponds as shown
in the attached construction plans. These ponds discharge to the Swannanoa
River.
These 4 ponds have been sized to have adequate depth and surface area to
drainage area ratios as recommended by DENR guidelines. Forebays have
been incorporated into each of these ponds at each point of discharge into the
ponds. The volume of these forebays is approximately 20% of the total pool
volume. These ponds also provide for water quality treatment by detaining the
runoff from a 1" storm event and bleeding this volume down between 2 and 5
days. Additional detention for flood attenuation has also been incorporated into
these ponds as required by the City of Asheville for storm events up to and
including a 100 yr- 24 hour storm. This was a requirement of a conditional use
site plan approval and is over and above the normal City requirement of
providing detention for the 10 yr event.
There is an area upstream of the site that drains into the stream that bisects the
project consisting of approximately 37 acres of mostly undeveloped lands.
Portions of the stream within the proposed project will be filled in and the stream
piped to allow the full development as shown in the attached construction plans.
The jurisdictional areas that are to remain are shown on the attached
construction plans.
Storm Water Management Permit Application - Narrative
Riverbend Marketplace
Asheville, NC
DWQ#0-0992
The proposed project consists of an approximately 59 acre retail commercial
development (Phase 1) owned by Horne Properties, Inc. and an approximately
15 acre future urban village development (Phase 2) owned by Riverbend
Development. All of Phase 1 and the rough grading and utility infrastructure for
Phase 2 will be developed by Horne Properties at this time. The complete build-
out of Phase 2 will be developed by the property owner, Riverbend Development.
The ACOE granted approval to fill 797 linear feet of intermittent streams, 75
linear feet of perennial streams and 0.25 acres of wetlands in order to construct
this project known as Riverbend Marketplace in Asheville, NC. A condition of
that approval was to submit a written storm water management plan and have it
approved by NCDENR Division of Water Quality.
The storm water management plan for this project will consist of a series of
ditches, curbs and storm sewer pipes that will collect storm water runoff from the
development described above and direct it into 4 wet detention ponds as shown
in the attached construction plans. These ponds discharge to the Swannanoa
River.
These 4 ponds have been sized to have adequate depth and surface area to
drainage area ratios as recommended by DENR guidelines. Forebays have
been incorporated into each of these ponds at each point of discharge into the
ponds. The volume of these forebays is approximately 20% of the total pool
volume. These ponds also provide for water quality treatment by detaining the
runoff from a 1" storm event and bleeding this volume down between 2 and 5
days. Additional detention for flood attenuation has also been incorporated into
these ponds as required by the City of Asheville for storm events up to and
including a 100 yr- 24 hour storm. This was a requirement of a conditional use
site plan approval and is over and above the normal City requirement of
providing detention for the 10 yr event.
There is an area upstream of the site that drains into the stream that bisects the
project consisting of approximately 37 acres of mostly undeveloped lands.
Portions of the stream within the proposed project will be filled in and the stream
piped to allow the full development as shown in the attached construction plans.
The jurisdictional areas that are to remain are shown on the attached
construction plans.
Storm Water Management Permit Application - Narrative
Riverbend Marketplace
Asheville, NC
DW Q#0-0992
The pertinent storm water management application forms and supplemental BMP
forms have been filled out and included with this package for review by DENR.
The City of Asheville has reviewed
of a few m nordeta lsnecessary to hydrology tdhef DENR
project with the exception
storm water management requirements.
NN A r?qp?
7
?? r
p '<
Mr. Michael Patterson
Horne Properties, Inc.
Cedar Bluff Office Park
412 N. Cedar Bluff Road, Suite 205
Knoxville, Tennessee, 37923-3609
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
September 29, 2003
DWQ# 03-0992
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Patterson:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place permanent fill in 797 linear feet of ini`Wlttdnt streams,
75 linear feet of perennial streams and 0.25 acre of wetlands in order to construct the Riverbend Marketplace in Buncombe County, as
described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality on August 12, 2003. After reviewing your application, we have
determined that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3402, which can be viewed on our web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 39 when it is issued by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval
will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your project, you must
notify us in writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner
must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland
fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506
(h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification, as well as the additional condition
listed below:
1. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with remaining jurisdictional wetlands and waters or areas within
50 feet of all streams and ponds on the property. These mechanisms shall be put in place within 30 days of the date of this letter or
the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later). A sample deed notification format can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit
web site at httr)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands ;
2. An additional condition is that a final, written stormwater management plan shall be approved in writing by this Office before the
impacts specified in this Certification occur per condition no. 3 in General Certification 3402. The stormwater management plan must
include plans and specifications for stormwater management facilities that are appropriate for surface waters classified as Class C
and deigned to remove 85% TSS according to the most recent version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual. These facilities must be designed to treat the runoff from the entire project, unless otherwise explicitly approved by the
Division of Water Quality. Also, before any permanent building is occupied at the subject site, the facilities (as approved by this Office)
shall be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management plan (as approved by this Office) shall be implemented. The
structural stormwater practices as approved by this Office as well as drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes
to the structural stormwater practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality;
3. You are required to return the attached Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification
has been completed.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days
of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any
questions, please telephone Kevin Barnett in our Asheville Regional Office at 828-251-6208 or Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in
Raleigh 919-733-9721.
Sindrely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
Micnaei r. tasiey, uovernor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
NCDENl
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
1) _5 - o a-tn,3
US Army Corps
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
PUBLIC NOTICE
Rropmuwm 5
FEB 2 3 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
V.EUMME)STOPJAYATERfi ,'CH
Issue Date: February 18, 2005
Comment Deadline: March 18, 2005
Corps Action ID #: 200531109
All interested parties are herby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps)
has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United States. Specific
plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans. This
Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site at
www. saw. us ace. army.mil/wet] ands
Applicant: River Bend LL C, Harley Dumi
16 Governor's View Road
Asheville, NC 28802
AGENT (if applicable): ClearlVaterEnvironmental Services, Inc., Clement Riddle
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally issue, or
deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures. This application is being considered
for approval pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
Location
The project site, known as the River Bend Business Park, is located east of Interstate 240,
approximately one mile east of Tunnel Road in East Asheville, Buncombe County, North
Carolina at the old Sayles-Biltmore Bleachery site. The project site contains wetlands and is
adjacent to the Swannanoa River. The site is bordered by the Swannanoa River to the north, by
the River Ridge Shopping Center to the south, and by Interstate 240 to the west.
Existing Site Conditions
The project site consists of cleared land, nearly all of which was altered in some manner by the
ownership of the Sayles-Biltmore Bleachery. The site contains one, 0.27-acre jurisdictional
forested wetland. This freshwater wetland is a seepage and stormwater influenced habitat.
There is no dominant overstory within the wetland. The dominant mid-story scrub-shrub stratum
consists of black willow (Salix nigra), and silver maple with an herbaceous layer of soft rush
(Juncus effuses). This wetland drains towards the Swannanoa River through a culvert, which
was previously permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers during the development of the

River Ridge Shopping Center. The North Carolina Department of Water Quality classifies the
Swannanoa River as C Waters. No named or unnamed tributaries are located on the property.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
As stated by the applicant, the purpose of this project is the urban re-development of a former
Superfund site that will create a high-density mixed use urban community that includes
residential living, retail shopping, and dining.
Project Description
Phase I of this project was recently developed by Horne Properties. During Phase I of the project
Horne Properties obtained a Section 404 permit on October 15, 2004 and a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification on September 29, 2003 to impact 0.41 acres of jurisdictional area;
specifically, 0.25 acres of wetlands and 790 linear feet of intermittent and aquatically
unimportant stream.
The applicant is proposing Phase II of this project, which includes 96,000 square feet of
commercial development, 176 apartment condominiums, and 84 individual town homes.
Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of material will be used to fill the 0.27-acre jurisdictional
wetland and bring it up to grade with the adjacent development pad.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate State
agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt of the application and
this public notice in the NCDWQ Central Office in Raleigh serves as application to the NCDWQ
for certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for
certification within sixty days of the date of the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central
Office. Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at
the NCDWQ Central Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in writing
delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Attention: Ms Cyndi Karoly by
March 14, 2005.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places
and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion
therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the proposed work. Presently,
unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be located within the
project area and/or could be affected by the proposed work.
2
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and
consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information,
the Corps has determined pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, that the proposed
project will have no effect on federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally
designated critical habitat.
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The
benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against
its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife
values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the
impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental
Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials;
Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this
proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine
whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision,
comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality,
general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also
used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a
public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall be
granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial or there is
otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
3
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, March 14, 2005. Comments should
be submitted to Ms. Rebekah L. Newton, US Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton Avenue,
Room 208, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.
Distribution:
Hard Copy w/ all application materials
Cyndi Karoly, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Hard Copy w/ any attachments necessary to meet requirements of 325.3 (plans, drawings,
wetland/stream information, etc.)
2 Doug Huggett, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, Hestron Plaza 1115 1 B,
Highway 24, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
4
n?

t

J • ` t y t A ? `• 7.m ' ` i
' ^
"
M.I r
r ,
` Project Slte

V, F y t ? +•P Av F ,.
t ? 1. /;r y t l ?I
k r
't
?? s; i
r
y

?' ?v

1? l
?
I.' , \ li.•? I `? j `
y 1 `_t,
'.? _; w ? ' Il y I' t ua C.b11

- I

River Bend Business Park
Buncombe County,
North Carolina
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
.YMW?M
?Im
Interstate 240
RIVER BEND BUSINESS PARK
PHASE II
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C.
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
WETLAND IMPACT MAP
FIGURE 2
River Bend Asheville Quadrangle 01111105 R ". ,
z
b
0
0
m
Ln
M
CLEARWATER
River Bend Business Park
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Buncombe County 224 South Grove Strcct, Suite F
North Carolina licndersonville, NC 28792
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3
_6? ?0311(EI P 500 1000 MERRS
<luillu rroperties, Inc. August 2003
Environmental Riverbend Marketplace
Consultants N.T.S.
ES EC1c?ic<d Site Location Map 83012-001
&tk-m
Figure * 5
IL
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-003
33CFR 325 Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
ita sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
.ny other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 222024302; and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. 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
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable waters of the
United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Untied States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information
is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample
drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the pro osed activit An a plication that is not completed
t
V
in full will be returned. 4 "
,. °
'V-..s' 1-
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4.DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
JAPI li'? 7 2u7
(ITEl11S BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S all gCntg? t required)
' "?
i
River Bend LLC .
l
ATTN: Mr. Ifarlcy Dunn CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
c/o It. Clement Riddle
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
16 Governor's View Road PO Box 528 224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Asheville, NC Asheville, NC 28802 Hendersonville, NC 28792
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence N/A a. Residence N/A
b. Business [phone] b. Business 828/698-9800
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
1 hereby authorize, R. Clement Riddle, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in
support of this crmit application.
?2l -Ur5
A P P L I A S IG A RE DATE
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
River Bend Business Park
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Swannanoa River
N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Buncombe NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
The site is located castt of Interstaee 240, approximately one (1) miles cast of Tunnel Road in Asheville. Access to the site is provided by a new developemnt bridge
and road along Swannnnoa River Road..
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From highway 25 turn cast onto Swannanoa River Road (NC Route 81) and continue towards the intersection of Interstate 240 and NC Route 81. Turn right into
property entrance, located approximately one-third mile from Interstate 240) Figure 1.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
See attached description.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
To build a high density mixed use urban community in the mountains of western North Carolina. This community will have retail, commercial, office, and
residential uses. See attached description.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of Phase 11 of the River Bend Business Park.
21. Type(s)of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Clean fill material approximately 1,300 cubic yards.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
0.27 acres of fill in wetlands for construction of building and parking.
See attached description.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completed? Yes ? No ® IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attached
a supplemental list).
See attached.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION # DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
USACE Jurisdictional Verification July 11, 2003
USACE Nationwide Permit 39 October 15, 2003
NCDWQ 401 Certification September 29, 2003
*Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plan permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the autho ' to undertake the wor described herein or am acting as the duly
aut rized agent of the applicant.
SIG URE APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE 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 1 I 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 falsif ies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes 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.
Adjacent Land Owners
Horne Properties - Asheville LLC
412 North Cedar Bluff Rd, Ste. 205
Knoxville, TN 37923
Horne Development River Bend, LLC
412 North Cedar Bluff Rd, Suite 205
Knoxville, TN 37923
Six Oaks LLC
190 B Continuum Drive
Fletcher, NC 28732
Easy Access Property, LTD
C/O Bob Hughes
6409 Westgate Road
Raleigh, NC 27617
Mountain Property Association, Inc.
300 North Winsted Ave.
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SECTION 404 PERMIT

NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 CERTIFICATION
January 2005
Applicant:
River Bend Business Park, LLC
Contact: Harley Dunn
PO Box 528
Asheville, NC 28802
828-277-6000
Prepared By:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite #F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
828-698-9800
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 2
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................3
3.1 Vegetative Communities ............................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern ......................................................... 3
PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT - River Bend Business Park ........................... 5
4.1 Mixed use Development ............................................................................................................. 5
4.2 Stormwater Pond ........................................................................................................................ 5
4.3 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 5
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 6
5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Project Justification ................................................................................................................... 7
5.3 The Site ...................................................................................................................................... 9
5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts) ................................. 10
5.5 Alternatives Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 10
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN ......................................................................... 11
6.1 Avoidance ................................................................................................................................. 11
6.2 Minimization ............................................................................................................................ 11
6.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................................. 11
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES ............. 13
7.1 Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines ..................................... 13
7.2 Factual Determination .............................................................................................................. 13
7.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem ......... 13
7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem ........................................ 16
7.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites .............................................................................. 16
7.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics ...................................................................... 18
7.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 19
PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 20
8.1 Conservation ............................................................................................................................. 20
8.2 Economics ................................................................................................................................ 20
8.3 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 20
8.4 General Environmental Concerns ............................................................................................. 20
8.5 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 20
8.6 Historic Properties .................................................................................................................... 21
8.7 Fish and Wildlife Values .......................................................................................................... 21
8.8 Flood Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 21
8.9 Floodplain Values ..................................................................................................................... 21
8.10 Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 21
8.11 Navigation ................................................................................................................................ 21
8.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion .................................................................................................... 21
8.13 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 22
8.14 Water Supply and Conservation ............................................................................................... 22
8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management) ............................................................................... 22
8.16 Energy Needs ............................................................................................................................ 23
8.17 Safety ........................................................................................................................................ 23
1.0 INTRODUCTION
River Bend Business Park, LLC, (the applicant), proposes to develop Phase II of a master
planned mixed use community on a portion of the 90-acre tract known as River Bend
Business Park (formerly the Sayles-Bleachery) in Buncombe County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). River Bend Business Park, LLC is an Asheville based real estate development
firm. Phase II, to be known as River Bend Village, will utilize approximately 18.5 acres
of that property. The site is accessed from the east off of Swannanoa River Road and/or
River Ridge Drive (Figure 2). Phase I was recently developed by Horne Properties, a
Knoxville, Tennessee based development firm.
River Bend envisions a Phase II development project that combines mixed use high density
development for approximately 176 apartment condominiums, 84 individual town houses,
and 96,000 square feet of commercial (office and retail) space. This plan has been
approved by the City of Asheville. Phase II of the development is the completion of the
proposed master plan which is the re-development of a former EPA listed Superfund site,
the Sayles Bleachery. The Phase II project boundary contains a 0.27 acre jurisdictional
wetland that drains towards the Swannanoa River.
The applicant has owned the land since 1990 and has expended considerable resources in
design of a comprehensive master plan for the development. The master plan is supported
by a thorough site selection process, followed by extensive planning, engineering analysis
and survey of the physical and biotic components of the site. The physical and biotic
surveys included recent aerial photography, 2 foot topographic surveys, complete Section
404 jurisdictional surveys, threatened and endangered (T&E) species surveys of the entire
site. Typical of master planned developments, the proposed project is being executed in
several phases.
2.0 BACKGROUND
River Bend Business Park, LLC, the applicant, brought in an experienced commercial
developer, Horne Properties, to help design the master plan for the proposed development
of the property and to purchase and develop Phase I of the venture.
The initial planning efforts focused on the entire site. The natural features of the land
were studied to determine the type of development plan that would best fit the property.
It is important to note, that one of the dominant factors of the intense planning process
was coordination with the City of Asheville in revitalizing a former superfund site into a
significant urban development that has multiple benefits and generally meets the needs
and welfare of the public. The project team including Wolverton & Associates,
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc., Masters Gentry Architects, Horne
Properties, Day Engineering and others spent many days in the field to determine the best
uses for the project site. The proposed urban master plan maximizes the re-development
of the former superfund site.
2.1 Project Location
The River Bend Business Park is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina
and is accessed by traveling west on Swannanoa River Road (NC Highway 81)
from the intersection of Swannanoa River Road and Fairview Road, then turning
south across the Swannanoa River at the new Bleachery Boulevard bridge (Figure
1). The project is located on the left side of Bleachery Boulevard approximately
mile past the bridge. The project elevation is approximately 2,150± ft. (Figure
3).
2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this project is the urban re-development of a former Superfund
site that will create a high-density mixed use urban community that includes
residential living, retail shopping, and dining opportunities to the area.
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina and consists of cleared
land, nearly all of which was altered in some manner by the former ownership of the
Sayles-Bleachery. Elevations range from approximately 2,200 feet MSL to 2,009 feet
MSL. The site is bordered by the Swannanoa River to the north. The property to the
south is currently developed as a shopping center (River Ridge Shopping Center). The
site is bordered to the west by Interstate 240.
The site contains one jurisdictional area, a 0.27-acre wetland. This wetland drains
towards the Swannanoa River through a culvert, which was previously permitted by
Horne Properties in Phase I of the development. The Swannanoa River is classified as C
Waters by the North Carolina Department of Water Quality. No named or unnamed
streams are located on the property. Most of the site has been cleared and graded. The
site contains one non-graded habitat type. This habitat types is a forested wetland
(Section 3.1)
3.1 Vegetative Communities
During our site visits, one habitat type was identified on the property: forested wetlands.
The following is a description of this habitat type identified on the referenced site and its
likelihood to harbor or support listed species. A soils discussion is also provided.
3.1.1 Forested Wetland
This freshwater wetland is a seepage and stormwater influenced habitat. There is
no dominant overstory within the wetland. The dominant mid-story scrub-shrub
stratum consists of black willow (Salix nigra), and silver maple with an
herbaceous layer of soft rush (Juncus effuses). The wetland areas were delineated
by C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. in June 2003. The wetland
delineation was verified in the field by Mr. David Baker on July 9, 2003.
Given the historical and recent disturbance to this small isolated wetland, we
cannot classify this area as a high quality wetland. However, it is currently
proving stormwater and ground water recharge functions and values.
3.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
were contacted regarding the known or potential occurrences of federally listed
threatened or endangered species or habitat types found on the River Bend Business Park
project area. The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey by C1earWater
Environmental Consultants staff. During field surveys, site habitats were identified and
compared with recognized habitats for each of the twelve species potentially occurring on
the site. Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Due to the disturbed
3
condition of most of the site (Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries mill), evidence of past
silvicultural practices on the eastern portion of the site, and a general lack of suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that any protected species exist on the property. A comprehensive
threatened and endangered species survey was prepared August 8, 2003 and is included
as an attachment to this application (Appendix A).
An updated field review of the proposed site was conducted in October 2004. It is the
opinion of C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally protected species are
still not likely to be present within the site. As such, development of the proposed River
Bend Business Park is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or
endangered species.
Although no federally listed threatened and endangered species were identified during
these surveys, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and
endangered species and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible
that endangered species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any
potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with
appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
4
4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT - River Bend Business Park
The 18.5-acre Phase II tract contains 0.27 acres of jurisdictional Wetlands. The applicant
proposes to permanently impact 0.27-acres of the above-described wetland of the
U.S./wetlands to achieve the previously stated project purpose (Figure 2). Specifically,
the applicant proposes to impact 0.27-acres of permanent fill for mixed use urban
redevelopment. Nearly all of the impacts are associated with building development. The
residential lots, utilities, roads, and stormwater management facilities do not propose any
impacts to jurisdictional systems.
Mitigation is being proposed off-site by paying into the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (acceptance letter attached Appendix B). This mitigation will
offset the 0.27 acres of wetlands associated with Phase II of River Bend as well as 0.41
acres of Phase I (previously permitted).
4.1 Mixed use Development
To accomplish the project purpose, the applicant is proposing 96,000 square feet
of commercial development, 260 residential units, parking, and 3.5 miles of
sidewalks. Specifically, the area added to the development by means of this
permit application includes approximately 3.5 acres. The planned square footage
on this site exceeds 22,000 square feet. Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of
material will be used to fill this portion of the site and bring it to a grade nearly
similar to the adjacent development pad.
4.2 Stormwater Pond
One pond is proposed to provide stormwater management as required by the NC
Division of Water Quality. This pond is located in the northern portion of the site
and has been previously approved by the NC Division of Water Quality (letter
dated February 17, 2004). No jurisdictional impacts are proposed for the
stormwater pond. See Section 8.15 for more information on stormwater
requirements. Any modifications to the approved stormwater plan will be
submitted to DWQ for their review and approval prior to impacts to the wetlands.
4.3 Utilities
There are no proposed permanent or temporary impacts to streams or wetlands
onsite resulting from the installation of utilities. It is the intent of the applicant to
bring electricity to the site via overhead lines or located underground and within
the proposed road right of ways. Drinking water will be provided to each
building site via municipal water supply system. The site will utilize the
Asheville municipal waster water treatment facility. Access to the sewer line
system is available on the north and south sides of the project site.
5.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Overview
This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the Applicant to assist the Wilmington
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in evaluating the application for
authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 at The
River Bend Business Park development in Buncombe County, North Carolina. An
analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines requirements for consideration of
alternatives as required by 40C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below. Actions taken to
avoid and minimize wetland impacts are presented in Section 6.0 of this Application.
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge
of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain
"sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the
requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information
needed to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the
Guidelines is commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact (as
determined by the functions of the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed
activity) and the scope/cost of the project." [See ACOE/EPA Memorandum to the
Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p. 2, dated August 23, 1994,
hereinafter the "Memorandum."] As noted in the Memorandum at pages 3-4, the
404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists
which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." [See Memorandum.]
"If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is
not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Re ig ster
85343 (December 24, 1980).]
Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).]
Clarification is provided in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be
considered in the detennination of practicability. An alternative site is considered
"available" if it is presently owned by the applicant or "could reasonably be obtained,
utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed
activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2).
Our intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope/cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs" was
substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the
6
applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry
which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines.
The EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an
explicit, but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic
sites are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are environmentally preferable."
Of course, the general requirements that impacts to the aquatic system not be
acceptable also applies. This presumption "...contains sufficient flexibility to reflect
circumstances of unusual cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December 24, 1980). It is
clear from these stipulations that a preferable alternative may allow filling in certain
wetland areas and subsequent mitigation and/or management of other areas.
5.2 Project Justiflcation
Master Planning and permitting large/long term development projects depend highly
upon having flexibility to implement sound land planning and engineering design
principles which are often conceptual at the time of permitting, but which must
include available land for development to economically justify the project, reasonable
site access, construction of utilities and stormwater systems, and appropriate location
of various land use amenities.
The applicant has expended significant resources to conduct intensive surveys and
assessments, including land survey, wetland delineation and survey, threatened and
endangered species survey, intensive land planning and market analysis. The
information gathered from these tasks has been considered in preparation of the
master plan submitted with this permit application. Market analysis conducted by
the applicant confirms the aptness of the project site for the intended purpose of re-
development of a former superfund site. However, for the project to be economically
viable, enough real estate must be made available for amenities to cover development
costs and provide a reasonable profit. Since the land area is finite, development costs,
particularly construction costs, must be limited for the project to be successful.
It is important to note that this site is uniquely well situated for the development of a
high-density, mixed use urban development. The site is located adjacent to interstate
240, less than one-half mile from Interstate 40 and is approximately 1 mile from the
center of Asheville retail center, Tunnel Road. The proximity to Tunnel Road is the
premium retail location in Asheville and provides the best potential for an
economically successful project. It is for these reasons that the applicant has been
trying to begin this re-development project for the last 10 years. No other site of this
size affords the same opportunity for retail-commercial success for the applicant and
improved tax base for the City and, at the same time, benefit the community by
removing a very serious problem, the abandoned and former Superfund site, the
Sayles-Bleachery. At the time of purchase, the proposed impacts for Phase I and
Phase II were within the framework of a Nationwide Permit 26 for minor impacts to
jurisdictional areas.
7
The proposed redevelopment will contain a variety of uses, generally consistent with
their other successful mixed use "sustainable development" projects in the southeast.
These land uses include single-family homes, commercial, retail, and office space,
and infrastructure such as utilities and 3.5 miles of sidewalks. The proposed land use
provides the future residents with an attractive high-density and aesthetically pleasing
place to live, work, and shop. The proposed plan is the highest and best use of the
former superfund site given its urban location.
The additional 3.5 acres that will be made available comprise an approximate value of
over $500,000 plus financial return on 22,000 additional square feet. This portion of
the project represents a significant economic benefit to the applicant and a substantial
anchor tenant to the overall mixed use community.
When reviewing this application, the USACE is also required to consider the public
interest in this project. In considering the public interest, the USACE must evaluate
the probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may
be expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments."
In balancing these interests, the USACE must consider the public and private need for
the proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations, and
the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project.
The USACE also considers other factors, including:
Conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion,
recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of the
property ownership and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Furthermore, the USACE regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the
district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors over the last three years through
an exhaustive planning process and believes that the proposed project is clearly in the
public interest. In fact, the proposed project master plan has been altered numerous
times to specifically accommodate the City of Asheville planning request to improve
the development for the general public.
The project should be able to benefit the public in terms of conservation, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, fish and wildlife values, and water quality. Most
importantly, while the project will impact 0.27 acres of wetlands, the overall wetland
impact for the project is minimal and is offset by adequate mitigation. The end result
is a contribution to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP_ of
approximately $18,000 for future restoration, preservation of wetlands in the
8
Asheville area. This amount should compensate for the total loss of wetlands (Phase
I and Phase II of the project) which is 0.71 acres.
It is our understanding that EEP will acquire wetlands that will be subject to
conservation easements to ensure permanent preservation. Because these streams and
wetlands perform valuable water quality functions, the preservation of these
important areas will contribute in perpetuity to wetlands, stream, fish, and wildlife
protection and improved water quality.
As with any large development, water quality protection and adequate stormwater
management are primary concerns. The applicant will respond to these concerns by
developing a stormwater management plan that may include grassed/infiltration
swales, biofilters, and stormwater ponds.
Additionally, the applicant has already set aside approximately 13 acres of river front
property along the Swannanoa River. The protection of the Swannanoa River buffer
further demonstrates the applicant's willingness to meet the needs of the public
interest.
5.3 The Site
Phase II of River Bend Business Park is comprised of approximately 18.5 acres, part
of a 90 acre tract of land that was purchased by River Bend in 1990. This site, the
former Sayles-Bleachery plant, was classified as a Superfund Site by the EPA. River
Bend has spent over a decade working towards cleanup and redevelopment of the site.
The re-development of this site will provide an outstanding mixed-use center close to
downtown Asheville.
A. Property is adequately served by community infrastructure.
The 90-acre parcel is served by Duke Power for electricity and BellSouth
provides telephone service to the site. Potable water and sewer services
currently are available to the site.
B. Close to Urban Center.
The applicant's site is ideally located for community development. The
project is located adjacent to Interstate 240 and the heart of the City of
Asheville Urban retail Center (Tunnel Road).
Of the $3.43 billion in retail sales recorded in Buncombe County during FY
2002-03, $2.51 billion or 73 percent of those sales occurred in the City of
Asheville. Among the ten largest cities in North Carolina, Asheville had the
highest level of retail sales per resident in FY 2002-03. This data reflects
Asheville's position as the regional economic center for Western North
Carolina.
9
C. Site Accessibility
The site is located adjacent to major roads and direct accessibility into all
portions of the site. A development's marketability is directly related to how
accessible it is to its residents/users. Further, if certain portions of the site are
inaccessible, the property loses value and limits the area of development.
5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts)
In preparing the master plan, the applicant considered a variety of constraints, including
impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. The applicant has avoided and minimized impacts
to wetlands to the greatest extent practicable and feasible while still accomplishing the
overall project purpose.
During design of the proposed master plan, the applicant considered development
alternatives, which included no impacts to the 0.27 acre wetland. Prior to the submittal of
this application, the applicant conducted meetings with regulatory agency personal
including the USACE, NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ), and NC Wildlife Resource
Commission on November 30, 2004.
Because the wetland is located in the center of the site, it is already subject to an
increased in stormwater and litter. It is possible that this wetland area will continue to 'Z
decline and its important functions and values will become less effective.
5.5 Alternatives Conclusion
This discussion of alternatives, together with other documents submitted by the applicant
in support of its 404 Permit, shows that the project complies with the guidelines and
promotes public interest. As this analysis clearly demonstrates, the applicant's
development is designed to minimize impacts to the extent practicable by providing
stormwater management systems and suitable mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands.
10
6.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
This conceptual mitigation plan describes compensatory measures for unavoidable
permanent impacts to 0.27 acres of wetlands with the development of the River Bend
Business Park, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The mitigation plan is provided in support of River Bend Business Park, LLC permit
application and the mitigation measures are described below:
The applicant proposes to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program at a 1:1 ratio for
impacts to 0.70 acres of wetlands (0.41 acres in Phase I and 0.27 acres in Phase II). A
copy of the letter from EEP willing to accept payment into the mitigation fund is
attached.
6.1 Avoidance
The applicant's master plan for redevelopment of the former superfund is a high
density urban development. Given its urban location in Asheville and the
location's previous history as a superfund site, redevelopment is extremely
expensive and the applicant is trying to maximize their ability to provide an
economically viable project. The remaining 0.27 acre wetland is located adjacent
to the former Sayles-Bleachery ash disposal pile. To best meet the applicant's
project purpose this wetland cannot be avoided.
6.2 Minimization
Additional sedimentation and erosion control measures will be taken during the
grading and filling phases of the project. Best Management Practices (BMP) will be
employed to minimize the impacts to streams adjacent to the proposed development.
The BMP's that may be employed include siltation barriers, , sediment traps, and
sediment basins. Use of BMP's will be one of the most useful methods of
mitigation to minimize disturbance of natural stream/wetland functions. See Section
7.3.2 for additional information on Sediment and Erosion Control.
6.3 Mitigation
The applicant proposes to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program at a 1:1
ratio for impacts to 0.70 acres of wetlands (0.41 acres in Phase I and 0.27 acres in
Phase II). A copy of the letter from EEP willing to accept payment into the
mitigation fund is attached (Appendix B).
Prior to contacting the EEP, the applicant conducted a thorough review of off-site
wetland mitigation opportunities. This includes aerial, topo, soil, and cursory
pedestrian surveys of potential suitable sites for wetland restoration or preservation.
The study conducted in October and November of 2004, focused on the Swannanoa
River drainage between Asheville and Black Mountain.
11
Our review identified few suitable areas for wetland mitigation. Four potential
sites were identified during map research and reviewed in the field. Site 1 is a 10
acre tract adjacent to Wood Avenue just south of Tunnel Road. It is estimated
that the site has approximately 2-3 acres of wetlands. However, discussion with
representatives of the owners, Ballard family, this property is not for sale. Site 2
is located east of Asheville just north of Warren Wilson Road. The wetlands are
located adjacent to Beetree Creek and owned by the Anvil Corporation. After
further research it was discovered that these wetlands area adjacent to and part of
a wetland/pond system that extends onto the Chemtronics Property (Now owned
by Tandy Corporation). This is a former EPA Superfund Site with a well
documented history of groundwater contamination. After review of the USACE
FINAL Superfund Five Year Review Report, Chemtronics Site, Swannanoa, NC;
EPA ID: NCD095459392, this site was dropped from further consideration due to
potential liability concerns. Site 3 was identified from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service NWI maps as an approximately 6 acre wetland adjacent to the Swannanoa
River near Azalea Road. After a site inspection of the floodplain, CEC
determined that this area is an upland floodplain and not suitable for wetland
mitigation. Site 4 is located in Swannanoa and was identified as an agricultural
field with agricultural ditches apparently draining the lower floodplain property.
However, a site visit confirmed that, the site is now occupied by the Asheville
Christian Academy and is not available for wetland mitigation.
In addition to these sites, drive by evaluations of the entire Swannanoa floodplain
did not identify other suitable options for wetland restoration. It is our opinion
that contributing to the NC EEP will be the most effective means of mitigating
unavoidable impacts from the project.
12
7.0 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1)
GUIDELINES
7.1 Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines
EPA interim regulations providing guidance for specification of deposit on sites
for dredge and fill material were published on September 17, 1993, in 40 C.F.R.
230 per Section 404(b)l. Sub-Parts A through I pertain to dredge and fill permits,
and apply to project sites similar to this project.
Sub-Part D presents a summary of compliance criteria for the 404(b)1 guidelines.
This section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a
Dredge & Fill Permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist.
Alternatives reviewed, detailed in Section 7.0, were assessed for compliance with
404(b) l guidelines.
Additional EPA guidance is presented related to general regulatory criteria,
wildlife value, and human health guidelines. The discharge of dredge and fill
material is considered pennittable under these guidelines if the discharge activity:
does not contribute to violation of state water quality standards; does not violate
toxic effluent standards; does not jeopardize the continued existence of species
listed as T&E pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and
subsequent amendments; does not cause degradation to any marine sanctuaries;
does not contribute to significant degradation of "waters of the United States;"
does not adversely affect human health as pertains to water supply; does not
adversely impact wildlife, food chain, and special aquatic sites; does not
contribute to the discharge of pollutants that may affect the food web; does not
have negative effects on the productivity of the aquatic ecosystem, or their
physical values; and does not have adverse impacts on recreation, aesthetic or
economic values. Additionally, the applicant is required to minimize potential
adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
7.2 Factual Determination
The USACE is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term
effects of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical,
chemical, and biological components of an aquatic environment.
7.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem
Sub-Part C of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines lists six physical and chemical
characteristics that must be assessed during the permit review, and the effects of
which must be determined to be minimal on the aquatic ecosystem.
13
7.3.1 Substrate
The modification of the substrate to an aquatic ecosystem can cause
changes in water circulation, depth, drainage patterns, water fluctuations,
water temperature, and benthic organism changes. No impacts to on-site
streams are proposed. Proposed alterations to on-site wetland consist of
filling 0.27 acres and mitigated through contributions to the EEP. The
applicant proposes to impact less than 0.27 acres of wetlands but mitigate
for the total wetland impacts Phase I and II (approximately 0.71 acres).
The designed and engineered surface water management plan will
alleviate potential problems resulting from alteration in drainage or water
level fluctuation patterns. The design of the stormwater management
system is intended to protect the chemical and biotic integrity of the water
quality and quantity aspects of the regional aquatic ecosystem.
7.3.2 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion Control)
The discharge of dredge and fill material can increase the amount of
suspended particulates in the aquatic ecosystem. While such an increase in
the turbidity level can have a negative effect on microorganisms and
invertebrates, it is expected to be controlled and minimized by the project
design. Through the placement of silt screens, hay bales, vegetated filter
strips, or other turbidity barriers, utilizing Best Management Practices will
control and minimize suspended particulates that may exit the area of
disturbance. The proposed project will be constructed and managed in such
a way as to minimize the potential for elevated levels of suspended
particulates.
The State of North Carolina enacted the Sediment and Erosion Control
law as part of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. This law
requires that anyone disturbing more than one acre of land must submit an
erosion control plan and receive approval from the N.C. Division of Land
Quality. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the project area
and other disturbed areas greater than one acre was designed by
Wolverton & Associates. The erosion and sedimentation control plan will
be reviewed and approved by the Buncombe County Soil and Erosion
Control Officer. The purpose of the erosion control plan is to develop
measures that will contain erosion during storm events before it reaches
streams or leaves the site.
Finally, many of the erosion control measures such as sediment traps can
be designed to accommodate the 2-year storm based on the state's
regulations.
14
7.3.3 Water Quality
The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not cause
increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem.
Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition
to possible chemical contamination shall be minimized or reduced. All
discharges of dredge and fill material will be controlled with a
sedimentation and erosion control plan.
It is anticipated that all of the material needed to fill the site will be taken
from on-site areas. The fill material used on-site will be clear and free of
chemical contamination. Should additional fill material be required,
suitable off-site clean fill material will be purchased and transported to the
project.
7.3.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation
The discharged dredge and fill material shall not adversely modify current
water circulation patterns by obstructed flow, changing direction or
velocity of water, or change in the velocity or flow of circulation. The
proposed activity should minimize the alterations to the dynamics of the
aquatic ecosystem. Flow will be maintained in the affected wetland
through adequately sized culverts. Water velocity should be maintained
by approved stormwater management systems. No impacts to current
patterns in water circulation are anticipated.
7.3.5 Normal Water Fluctuations
Changes in water level fluctuations, promoting a static or non-fluctuating
ecosystem may produce negative environmental effects, potentially caused
by the discharge of dredge and fill material into aquatic systems. The on-
site wetland habitat will be removed. The proposed project includes a
surface water management plan that provides naturally fluctuating water
levels based on design criteria and should not have an effect to off-site
waters.
7.3.6 Salinity
The concern in regard to physical and chemical characteristics of an
aquatic ecosystem is related to the salinity gradient from saltwater into
freshwater. A discharge of dredge and fill material can alter the salinity
and mixing zone between salt and freshwater. Since the project is located
inland, and is not tidally influenced, no modification to the salinity of on-
site or adjacent waters is expected.
15
7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem
Sub-Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern from
which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of
the ecosystem. These components are T&E species; fish, crustaceans, mollusks,
and other aquatic organisms in the food web; and other wildlife.
7.4.1 Threatened or Endangered Species
Discharge of dredge and fill material may cause the potential loss of
valuable habitat to wildlife and plant species listed as T&E by the USFWS
through the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and its subsequent additions
and amendments (50 C.F.R. 17.11). The project is planned so that there
are no filling impacts to 14.88 acres of wetlands. No impacts to federally
listed species are expected as described in Section 3.2 above.
7.4.2 Fishes, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the
Food Web
Discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web by impacting
animals such as invertebrates that make up the basis of a food chain. The
release of contaminants or an increase in turbidity may have potential
negative effects on certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may
also potentially increase the levels of exotic species.
Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the
U.S./wetlands on the project should reasonably be expected to have
minimal to no effects on wetland and aquatic systems in the vicinity.
7.4.3 Other Wildlife
The discharge of dredge and fill material can have a negative effect on the
breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred
food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species.
A minimal loss of wildlife habitat for wetland-dependent species may
result from construction of the project, the proposed mitigation should
compensate for any minor loss of habitat.
7.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Sub-Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential
impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges;
wetlands; mud flats; vegetated shallows; coral reefs; and riffle and pool
complexes.
16
7.5.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges
The discharge of dredge and fill material may cause potential negative
effects on adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges through impacts to
water quality, loss of wildlife habitat, additional human access, creating
the need for frequent maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment
of undesirable plant and animal species, and change of balance of habitat
type. No impacts on sanctuaries or refuges resulting from the
development of the project are anticipated.
7.5.2 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material will have adverse effects on
wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation.
Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat,
flood storage, and groundwater recharge. To offset impacts to wetlands,
the applicant is mitigating by contributing to the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
7.5.3 Mud Flats
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have negative
impacts on mud flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine
systems. Since the project does not contain any mud flat communities,
loss of value to these ecosystems will not occur on-site.
7.5.4 Vegetated Shallows
Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that contain rooted
aquatic vegetation. This type of habitat generally exists within estuarine,
marine, and some freshwater lakes and rivers. No such permanently
inundated vegetated shallow habitats exist on the project; therefore, there
are no expected impacts to this type of ecosystem.
7.5.5 Coral Reefs
Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. No coral reefs exist
on the project; therefore, no impacts to this type of ecosystem will occur.
7.5.6 Riffle and Pool Complexes
Discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle and pool
complexes may potentially have a negative impact to water quality and
wildlife value. Riffle and pool ecosystems generally exist along steeper
gradients of streams and rivers, on and in the immediate vicinity of the
17
project. The impacted jurisdictional area does not contain riffle and pool
stream complexes.
7.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics
Sub-Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use
of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and
commercial fisheries, water-related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar
preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines. No effects on
human use characteristics can be anticipated from the proposed development of
the project.
7.6.1 Municipal and Private Water Supply
Significant discharges of dredge and fill material should not have a
negative impact on water quality serving as a water supply for
municipalities or private developments. There should be no affect to
municipal; or private drinking water supplies. Potable water is being
supplied to Phase 11 by the Asheville municipal water supply system.
7.6.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have a negative
effect on water quality. However, the connection to the Swannanoa River
is entirely culverted. There is no recreational or commercial fishery
associated with the proposed impact area. Phase I riparian buffers
(approximately 13 acres) were established to assist in the long-term
protection and viability of the Swannanoa River.
7.6.3 Water-Related Recreation
A discharge of dredge and fill material may have a negative effect on
water-related recreation by impairing or destroying water resources that
support recreational activities. Development of the project is not expected
to have negative impacts on water-related recreation activities as the
privately owned 0.27 acre wetland has not provided recreational uses in
the past.
7.6.4 Aesthetics
The discharge of dredge and fill materials into wetland ecosystems may
adversely impact the aesthetic value of natural aquatic ecosystems. The
project has been planned to eliminate impacts to the on-site wetlands and
primary streams. Payment is being proposed the EEP to restore and
protect wetlands in the French Broad River Basin.
18
7.6.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores,
Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves
No areas as described above will be affected by the proposed development
of the project.
7.7 Summary
Based on the EPA guidelines identified within 40 C.F.R. 230, and enumerated
herein, a number of potential environmental impacts have been presented and
subsequently addressed. The proposed permanent impact to 0.27 acres of
wetlands will not cause any off-site adverse impacts. Mitigation provided should
more than compensate for any on-site impacts.

19
8.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contrary to the public
interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed
in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below.
8.1 Conservation
The redevelopment of the former superfund site does include an on-site
conservation of natural resources. The applicant has set aside approximately 13
acres of riparian buffers along the Swannanoa River. In addition, contribution into
the NC EEP will allow appropriate mitigation of wetland resources in the French
Broad River Basin. The EEP mitigation is planned to be a comprehensive
watershed approach that maximizes the protection and enhancement of wetlands
and waters of the US.
8.2 Economics
River Bend Village overall is expected to employ several hundred people, and to
have a significant economic positive impact on the property tax base for Buncombe
County as well as a positive impact on the local retail industry. Municipal
sewer/water extensions are being paid for privately for this project and the roads
within the project site will be privately owned and maintained.
8.3 Aesthetics
The project has been carefully planned by the project developers and reviewed by
the City of Asheville to minimize impacts to the aesthetics of the area. The high-
density nature of the project is consistent with the urban development of the
adjacent land owners.
8.4 General Environmental Concerns
Other than wetland impacts, proposed urban development activities on the project
site would have no significant identifiable impacts upon other environmental
components due to the nearly century long use of this property as heavy industrial.
8.5 Wetlands
Development of the project will impact 0.27 acres of on-site wetlands. Payment
into the NC EEP for impacts to .70 acres (Phase I and Phase II) of wetlands should
off-set these impacts.
20
8.6 Historic Properties
The Sayles-Bleachery was documented in the Historic Architectural Resources of
Downtown Asheville prior to its demolition in 2003. There were no known
structures on the Phase II portion of the project.
8.7 Fish and Wildlife Values
The project is a high-density urban redevelopment project on a former Superfund
site. As this site has been thoroughly developed and managed for nearly 90 years
there has been minimal fish and wildlife values on the project site. Phase I of the
development has provided for a substantial, 13 acre riparian buffer along the
Swannanoa River.
8.8 Flood Hazards
Phase II is within Zone X, outside of the 100 year floodplain (Federal Insurance
Rate Maps, Community Panel Number 37021C 0309, effective date May 1996).
This area is located directly in the Back of the existing PetSmart store. The
applicant does not propose any impacts to wetlands or streams within the 100-
year floodplain.
8.9 Floodplain Values
The wetland is located at the base of steep topography on the northern portion of
Phase II. The applicant does not propose any impacts to wetlands or streams
within the 100-year floodplain. There is some floodplain associated with the
Swannanoa River in Phase I. However, Phase I of the development has provided
for a substantial, 13 acre riparian buffer along the Swannanoa River.
8.10 Land Use
The proposed project is consistent with the existing land uses and zoning for the
property and surrounding area.
8.11 Navigation
No navigable waters exist on site. The proposed project will not effect navigation.
8.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion
An erosion control plan will be implemented as part of the construction plan for the
project (See Section 7.3.2 above). During the construction process, Best
Management Practices will be followed. These BMP's will include the
construction of swales, erosion and sediment control structures, turbidity barriers,
and other measures that will prevent sediment transport off the project into other
21
waters. Use of devices such as silt screens, staked hay bales, temporary grassing,
wind rowing of vegetation, and other mechanisms to prevent turbidity will be
employed.
8.13 Recreation
Phase I of the redevelopment provides 13.5acres of river front park as a community
greenway and river buffer. Developers have constructed a paved pedestrian
walking path along the river throughout the park, as well as artistic and historic
exhibit features Public access is allowed and encouraged along this corridor which
will eventually connect with other segments of the City of Asheville's River Front
project. This is the first and currently the only such project on the Swannanoa
River.
8.14 Water Supply and Conservation
Potable water will be provided to the project by the municipal water service.
8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
No short term or long term adverse water quality impacts are anticipated. BMP's
will be incorporated during construction. Stream buffers are being provided to
assure long-term stream protection and integrity.
A stormwater management plan will be designed by Day Engineering and
Associates to satisfy the future stormwater management needs of the proposed
development. Although this plan is not finalized, the draft plan includes the use
of several stormwater management techniques that will direct stormwater into
biofilters or wet ponds from the impervious area associated with the development.
Stormwater from the development will be directed to flow through permanent
stormwater management facilities in the approved plan. No direct discharge of
stormwater to streams is designed for the project.
The stormwater management facilities will be designed to meet the guidelines set
forth in the Stormwater Best Management Practices, NCDENR 1999 and is
required for certain areas by the 401 Water Quality Certification. Biofilters are
designed and configured to provide significant removal of suspended solids,
nutrients, and pollutants from incoming stormwater. Design parameter includes
the provision of sufficient surface area to promote settling of potential pollutants.
The stormwater biofilters are designed for a target sediment removal rate at or
above 85%.
The stormwater management plan will be approved by NCDWQ prior to impacts
to streams. Stormwater management is a requirement under the 401 Water
Quality Certification and may require periodic maintenance to meet stormwater
plan requirements.
22
8.16 Energy Needs
There are no known sources of materials on the project that could be used to
generate energy, nor will the project contribute to any other energy production. It is
expected that Duke Power will supply the electrical energy needed for
development.
8.17 Safety
The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible considerations
for public safety. This includes approximately 7 miles of sidewalks associated with
Phase I and II as well as all road and speeds designed to meet NC DOT standards.
8.18 Food and Fiber Production
The project site is not utilized for food production or silvicultural activities. This
site is the former location of the Sayles-Bleachery and was used as a heavy
industrial site from 1925 to the 1990's.
8.19 Mineral Needs
The project fulfills no current mineral needs. No mining activities are planned as
part of this development.
8.20 Considerations of Property Ownership
The proposed development of the project will not in any ways hinder surrounding
private property owners from enjoying, managing, or developing their properties in
any legal fashion they may choose consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
The address of the project property owner is as follows:
Owner: River Bend Business Park, LLC.
Contact: Harley Dunn
PO Box 528
Asheville, NC 28802-0528
[phone]
[phone]Fax
8.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public
The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by providing
recreational and residential facilities in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
23

,f f r i -1.? I

I1

J 1

?f dl
Mme. F -,f
y.

River Bend Business Park
Buncombe County,
North Carolina
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Strect, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
TrM M7TM- 012-01D. f7-f-7'

terstate 240
In
RIVER BEND BUSINESS PARK
PHASE II
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C.
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
WETLAND IMPACT MAP
FIGURE 2
River Bend Asheville Quadrangle 01/11/05 Flpure I
nc-sc.uuu- vv 82°31.000' W 82°30.000' W WGS84 82°29.000' W
Y !
?? i, 0 ? ???\ ? / ?? ? '???? ?? r l),• r ?_''' 'd?r??) A ?. 1"? Al li,? ? "??? ?`a. `•a?l ? V ?:? .j ? _...
?? ?. r r• .11? 7 ) ? ?=? ?r)I , r',, ,f ,?.J ??`l !rl? ?•'r77? •? , ?1 ??"?l l??ir?/?f ?? ?? -1
54
? ??' (: U?l ??l i? ?y? , t?.? / A??? l?. ? ,Yr ? t? r,}j r ?l ?'f •' ? l?/ ?[ ??4'? ?? I a.L
? ? .??? f r '' r '1 ? ? fir' 1 r ? `??1 \ ? r ? t??,i" ` ?? ?? L ? • r ll3 ? •: ? ?
? ? \ v '1??`??' ?' ?? ?`,'1 11 1, ???'tlt? ? I Td?? ?1 Ys;; c • E',ry• r I 1. Iii ? wcy
r•-
?iy y
' ? i ? ??^r ?? pl ? ?1 )???r`, i}?- 1? ' ?i /' t) :r }v ,4T4 _?! ;r t ?. r• b % l} ? v??
?' '. r .? l`r• J JI ?'Ul 1}??r?, (,\'I { C /«` I,f \ ••? •` ?v? /l 1
I{ C ? ? ? )11 17 / 1?n I r t 11 r? J r
f +:S J ;r• -. ' .D ? i , - ii _ b"c z :V , •dr • ?1 ?" \M°W/i'?nl. F L?
,,, I ? ? ? Y ?I `? (, .? / '? qo.v ??•?rte t. - r • J ?
v ? ? 1? f ? i ? ?,s ? ?/ (- w? z ? -k 'r?• 1 45. ? ? ?,j"?. ?. i `I t P ? -
y. t '? E 7
oZ r"Irrr y?cr I R.J?' ?i f?'Y {\ 1 ?' e•?r''? 1? yt.r,l?f
111\ . 1, r ??' ?? di G w f / t / r w ?!
? .?` . ,? I ?-:?i`?d'1'" /?tii ,_?•?? .?? I `v?, :I-)n,a ??F' ? i_-,3??''• ?i;`, ?'???
J ??ir t ? I ` ,Ti; _ vn1+? ?' \ Pro ect Sit
? rr ? ?( E 1 l/ ?--•'1 i v°i I I?? (t? ? _°? "T ? 's o ?I ??•, ?
1?}LI>D= • 1 (.. ???"' -I C iR Y' s t /li?9NN5
- I ayvy?t _ f ?` f7 ? '•L , : ,I • ' ? r? ti 1 ? 19i??? pr'FY? ? _.:r('' y? ?r ?? r ? (; ? , m
r?Cr. f? / ? ? } • l ,??? i • ?1 ill ?/ ? 1 r•,^t7 ' K %?ri " ';' `-?- `??? s .,
?? .?° 1. I .? ? "?r •? ? •?\ ' ?? ? ? fin` ?\"?? ? ? ;1;?jj?? ?r^
y
.., $ ? C \? '9!'df 1?.V? !?'?.. _ \.C\t1?'\'C, r l?.?y. /_.,_. •?. ,r??{,. ?1 ?,? \\ \,,??Yi'?\• .; l ll /?.\
I-•_ 1 ,A' _ ?., ter, ) S 3 Y ?:^ 1 ._ \
ri .\.l E? ? r? i' ;t i.: r? :? 5??1• ?7 ?I??? a?fl" ? 41
h y o . ' n ; /? r ni ??. It 41i; ??-?•' /? •' M
•? i,lrs? J ? ?' we '? ? ?c, ? '?[?? JJ 1 ?
Il/- , r ` ,J I" j Yrj Ji "_`' Jli, ` `fC (?r' l '-4i'?' > 1I? ?L11 •? -z s r? i
82°32.000' W 82°31.000' W 82°30.000' W WGS84 82°29.000' W
z
D
0
n
n
r awe
6• 000 1fE1 4 500 x000 Mf1fgS
CLEARWATER
River Bend Business Park Environmental Consultants, Inc. USGS Topographic Map
Buncombe County 224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792 Figure 3
North Carolina
828-698-9ROO
Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
For
Riverbend Marketplace
Buncombe County, North Carolina
August 8, 2003
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report details methods used and an assessment of survey results for a
threatened and endangered (T&E) species survey and habitat assessment for the
approximately 79-acre Riverbend Marketplace project. The T&E species survey was
conducted to determine the occurrence of or the potential for animal and plant species listed
as federally threatened or endangered to exist on the proposed site. Completion of this
survey was directed by and complies with current state and federal regulations [Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543) and the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect. 113 article 25) and North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979 (N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12-22)].
The referenced site is bordered by the Swannanoa River to the north and Interstate-240 to
the south, in Buncombe County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Access to the site is available
from Swannanoa River Road (N.C. Route 81) on the northern border of the site.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
A preliminary protected species survey was conducted Junel7, 2003, on the proposed site
by C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. to determine potential for occurrences of
animal and plant species listed as endangered or threatened by current Federal regulations.
Recent correspondence solicited from the USFWS database provided existing data
concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened or endangered species in
Buncombe County, North Carolina. The USFWS lists the following twelve Federally
threatened and endangered species as occurring or potentially occurring in Buncombe
County. The species listed below were included in the surveys and assessment.
Common Name
Bog turtle Scientific Name
Clemmys muhlenbur 'i Status
Threatened*
Eastern cougar Felis concolor cougar Endangered
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucom s sabrinus coloratus Endangered
S tfin chub H bo sis monacha Threatened
Gray bat M otis isencens Endangered
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonata raveneliana Endangered
Spreading avers Geum radiatum Endangered
Oyster mussel E ioblasma ca sae ormis Endangered
Bunched arrowhead Sa ittaria asiculata Endangered
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia 'onesii Endangered
Virginia s irea S iraea vir iniana Threatened
Rock gnome lichen G mnoderma lineare Endangered
. ureziWii d uue w simnariry W appearance with northern bog turtle
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program database was also reviewed and provided existing data
concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened and endangered species in
Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey by ClearWater
Environmental Consultants staff. During field surveys, site habitats were identified and
compared with recognized habitats for each of the twelve species potentially occurring on
the site. Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Due to the disturbed
condition of most of the site (Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries mill), evidence of past
silvicultural practices on the eastern portion of the site, and a general lack of suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that any protected species exist on the property.
3.0 CONCLUSION
During completion of threatened and endangered species habitat assessments for the
Riverbend Marketplace, no listed species were observed. It is the opinion of ClearWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally and state protected species are not likely to
be present within the site. As such, development of the proposed 79-acre Riverbend
Marketplace is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any threatened or endangered
species.
Although no threatened and endangered species were identified during this survey,
because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and endangered species
and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible that endangered
species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any potential
findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with appropriate
agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
2
%,iearwater nurne rroperties, Inc. August 2003
Environmental Riverbend Marketplace
Consultants N.T.S.
83012-001
"'I"l"`j Site Location Map
?So16}l?i Figure 1
i, cos stem
jai e t
PROGRAM
Clement Riddle
Clear Water Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Subject: Project: Riverbend Marketplace
County: Buncombe
November 17, 2004
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for riparian wetland impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that the decision
by the NCEEP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be approved by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of
the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP for impacts associated with this project is
appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. 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
forward copies of the 404 Permit/401 Certification to Ecosystem Enhancement Program in order for an invoice to be
generated.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated November 15, 2004, the wetlands restoration that is necessary
to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The maximum
amount of mitigation that the NCEEP will accent for this nmiect is atcn ;nrl;cntPrt ;n th;c tnhlr
Stream
linear feet Riparian Wetlands
acres Riparian Buffer
(ft')
Impacts 0.70
Mitigation Maximum 1.40
The riparian wetlands mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Section 404
Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 06010105 of the French Broad Fear River Basin.
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of Transportation
signed July 22, 2003.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
James B. Stanfill 1
Strategic Planning Supervisor
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
David Baker, USACOE-Asheville
Kevin Barnett, DWQ Regional Office-Asheville
File
Rotor ... E ... Prot"' Ow State
IMENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 / 919-733-5208 / www.nceep.net
224 South Grove Street
Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
828-698-9003 FAX

o ? - U a-t? 3
To: Dave Baker From: Clement Riddle
Fax: [phone] Pages: 2
Phone: [phone] Date: 1/31/2005
Re: River Bend, Asheville CC:
? Urgent ? For Review ? Please Comment ? Please Reply ? Please Recycle
Revised Page 1
CC?I?D?IC
FEB 2 1 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
METInOS Ad :D STCM,;"k"1ATER 01Vv' H
i •d
dii,=an qn TR uer
1.0 INTRODUCTION
River Bend Business Park, LLC, (the applicant), proposes to develop Phase II of a master
planned mixed use community on a portion of the 90-acre tract known as River Bend
Business Park (formerly the Sayles-Bleachery) in Buncombe County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). River Bend Business Park, LLC is an Asheville based real estate development
firm. Phase If, to be known as River Bend Village, will utilize approximately 18.5 acres
of that property. The site is accessed from the east off of Swannanoa River Road and/or
River Ridge Drive (Figure 2).
Phase I was recently developed by Home Properties, a Knoxville, Tennessee based
development firm. During Phase I of the project Horne Properties obtained a Section 404
Permit (October 15, 2003) and 401 Water Quality Certification (September 29, 2003) to
impact 0.41 acres of jurisdictional area; specifically, 0.25 acres of wetlands and 790 linear
feet of intermittent and aquatically unimportant stream.
River Bend envisions a Phase II development project that combines mixed use high density
development for approximately 176 apartment condominiums, 84 individual town houses,
and 96,000 square feet of commercial (office and retail) space. This plan has been
approved by the City of Asheville. Phase If of the development is the completion of the
proposed master plan which is the re-development of a former EPA listed Superfund site,
the Sayles Bleachery. The Phase II project boundary contains a 0.27 acre jurisdictional
wetland that drains towards the Swannanoa River.
The applicant has owned the land since 1990 and has expended considerable resources in
design of a comprehensive master plan for the development. The master plan is supported
by a thorough site selection process, followed by extensive planning, engineering analysis
and survey of the physical and biotic components of the site. The physical and biotic
surveys included recent aerial photography, 2 foot topographic surveys, complete Section
404 jurisdictional surveys, threatened and endangered (T&E) species surveys of the entire
site. Typical of master planned developments, the proposed project is being executed in
several phases.
Z-d
dai':ao so tE Uer
S
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS G?L^?1
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 20013115-1 County Rnn omh . Quad ASHF.VHJ.F
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property owner: Horne Properties, Incorporated, Attn: Mr. Michael Patterson
Address: 412 N. Cedar Bluff Road, Suite 205
Knoxville, TN 37923-3609
Telephone No: [phone]
Zone: 44 UTM or LAT/LONG: North: 3937803 East: 637037
Size and Location of project (water body, road name/number, town, etc.) An approximate 79 acre tract adjacent to the
Swannanoa River off of NC Highway 81, Swannanoa River Road, in Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The parcel includes an unnamed tributary to the Swannanoa River and adjacent wetlands.
Description of Activity: to construct a bridge across the Swannanoa River to provide access into the Riverbend
Marketplace development. Construction of a bridge abutment on the right bank of the river will require impacts to
75 linear feet of channel. In addition, approximately 790 linear feet of intermittent, aquatically unimportant stream
channel and 0.25 acre of adjacent wetlands will be filled in conjunction with site preparation for the development.
Approximately 0.27 acre of wetland (wetland A as depicted on the permit plans) is to be preserved through deed
restrictions or restrictive covenants. A buffer area adjacent to the Swannanoa River is to be dedicated to the City of
Asheville for incorporation into their greenway program.
Applicable Law: _X_ Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344)
(check all that apply) Section 10 (River and Harbors Act of 1899)
Authorization: NW39 Nationwide Permit Number
Your work is authorized by this Regional General (RGP) or Nationwide Permit (NWP) provided it is accomplished in
strict accordance with the attached conditions, those outlined in the attached October 3, 2003 NC Wildlife Resources
Commission letter, and your submitted plans. A copy of the recorded deed restrictions or restrictive covenants,
protecting the remaining 0.27 acre wetland and stream corridor, shall be provided to the Corps of Engineers within 90
days of permit verification. If your activity is subject to Section 404 (if Section 404 block above is checked), before
beginning work you must also receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management, telephone [phone]. For any activity within the twenty coastal counties, before beginning work you
must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, telephone [phone].
Please read and carefully comply with the attached conditions of the RGP or NWP. Any violation of the conditions of
the RGP or the NWP referenced above may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or
appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army RGP or NWP verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any
other required Federal, State, or local approvaWpermits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local
agencies before beginning work.
If there are any questions regarding this authorization or any of the conditions of the General Permit or Nationwide
Permit, please contact the Corps Regulatory Official specified below.

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
August 8, 2003
Mr. David Baker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave., Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Re: Wetlands/Waters Verification Request (Revised)
Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries Site (.77.97)
Asheville, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Baker:

I; G ur%n,
On June 17, 2003, C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) conducted a wetlands/waters
delineation of the Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries property located in Asheville, North Carolina. Attached is
the Request for Wetlands Determination form and associated figures.
Following our on-site meeting with you and Mr. Steve Chapin, the jurisdictional auras have been revised to
include five wetlands (including linear wetlands found within the drainage channel near the central portion
of the site). In addition to one perennial stream (the Swannanoa River), one segment of intermittent,
important stream (approximately 187 linear feet), and two reaches of intermittent, unimportant stream
were identified on the property. Please review the revised survey and the jurisdictional areas figure, which
delineates the channel into linear wetland and intermittent stream.
Please contact us [phone] if you have any questions or need any additional information. We
respectfully request your verification of the jurisdictional boundaries as depicted on the attached figures.
Sincerely,
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
J. An w Whorton
Senior Ecologist
cc: Mr. Michael Patterson, Horne Development
R@(r-?gflWf2
klk-.7 on
Attachments: Wetland Determination Form MAH X 7 2005
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Site Topographic Map "E7L'V@SANSTOMATeRO?4CH
Figure 3: Soil Survey Map
Figure 4: Jurisdictional Areas
Figure 5: Wetland Survey (Provided by Tysinger Hampton & Partners, Inc.)
Figures 6-8: Representative Channel Photographs
Wetland Data Forms
Stream Channel Evaluation Forms
300 North Main Street, Suite 202
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com
j Regulatory Division -Wilmington District -Corps of Engineers -151 Patton Avcnue - Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
REQUEST FOR WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Date: Aueust 8, 2003
County: Buncombe Total Acreage of Tract: approx. 77.97 acrg2 Total Jurisdictional Acreage
Project Name (if applicable): Savles-Biltmore Bleacheries
Property Owner or Applicant Agent/Developer/Engineer
(Name, Address, Phone):
Attn:. Michael Patterson Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Horne Development 300 North Main Street, Suite 202
Cedar Bluff Office Park Hendersonville, NC 28792
412 N. Cedar Bluff Road, Suite 205 828/698-9800
Knoxville, Tennessee 37923-3609
Status of Project (check one):
? On-going site work for development purposes
® Development in planning stages
? No specific development plans at this time
Project Type - Indicate the proposed use of the land in question or, if no specific work is planned at present,
indicate the current zoning or land use at the site (check one):
? Residential ? Commercial
? Industrial ®Mixed Use (Residential + Commercial)
? Agriculture ? Public Works
? Silviculture ? Aquaculture ? Other:
Information Required to Accompany Request - Check the items submitted - forward as much information as
is available. At a minimum, the first two items must be forwarded:
® Accurate Location Map (from County Map, USGS Quad Sheet, ctc.)
® Survey Plat or Tax Map of the Property in Question
® Soil Survey Sheet (from USDA-NRCS) or Aerial Photo (from County Assessor's Office or
other source). Property boundaries should be shown on the soil survey/photo.
® Topographic Survey
? Conceptual Site Plan for the Overall Development
IMPORTANT NOTE: Legible printed name and signature required. The person signing this form
must be the present property owner or have the specific authority of the property owner to authorize
Corps of Engineers employees or their agents to enter onto the property for on-site investigations if such
is deemed necessary. Do not lien this form unless you are the owner, or have the specific authority
of the property owner.
PRINTED NAME of person signing this form, below: J. Andrew Whorton
Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent:

eArtall \?r:`,
I
I
t:llte Kendworth
Dam
J

ra
LLtMOIC
uol im,rr,..r n,o N

8

N

't , Sayles Wl?gi' ', ?
} x' r rr c

1 ti `1?1
t
\ t
,5 1
,I
Clearwater
Environmental
Consultants
c,4?tir:J
E501;?"o
norne Properties, Inc.
Riverbend Marketplace
Site Location Map
August 2003
N.T.S.
83012-001
Figure 1

go, l? IN

kpproximate
lite Bounda

lie I

Horne Properties, Inc.
Cleavlar
Environmental Riverbend Marketplace
Consultants
n4sr::J Site Topographic Map
August2003
N.T.S.
63012-001
Figure 2

umravw«_...or.
Clearwater
Environmental
Consultants
fUic .?I
?- 7- tla,st
Horne vropertiesr inc.
Riverbend Marketplace
Soils Survey Map
N.T.S.
83012-001
Figure 3
r'

- INTERSTATE 240 -?' -?- i
....... ....
N
?cuioe cAa. ? NI
caw 400. ? ,
SAYLES-B{LTIIORE !
BLEACHERIES
(M LIAMAM R ABANDONED) !
W v.Nw pD ? ?
? carton rt>•tw
ltrl vher ?aq ? ?
'. i
am vAa AM
i
------ ----- ----- - -
MEND
j%=cwoL TOT"-
SO? rrTLAMMO s ACRE 0 - "'•u••
L PORTANT. WWWTTENT SIXUk 1,054 Lf./U.14E ACRE ----- - s?1rs
WORTANT. WMUTTENIT SWAM 157 Li.A= ACRE
PUMNAL STREAM (SWWWOOA RTYERk 2-42 Li./1.48 ACRE
h? ~ Hone Proper'ies, Lu Augmt 2003
aEARwaER
EM'9r09E7tUl Rhubend MxketpUm 1 InttT = 400 Feet
CO WAM N:. 83012-001
" JurbdkVonalArea
= s ,
t. RrIX K. 5. mmrv MAT TMS PLAT MAS DRA.
STHFN9O DOES 1 EROw AN ACIVAE ",EL MADE VM" Yr -R StFERR YY
-Y
T"ll ME SVR?[r is AN C1aSTR1D PARCEL OR PARCELS OF IAN,
STRCIT: THNOT AT MIS PE n FLAT A WAS AS STREET OR 04-CE AN EM,,,
M PREPARED M ACCORDANCE -M
CA- ..?._JO A S AVTXKD. -MESS Yr CRIC1 -- --
_j
i
, U__J,
RIVER BEND BUSNESS PARK
TRACT 1
D.B. 1838-PC.612
_r/tlD/
, i0or
J/L
_Tnt Ell
1 .......... 6
s
r
t? / / E13 ?Q.
As / R an
V
A.
N At At 3 LlE y?QT/Qtr
All
63*
El. I
/ t?rtttw?•• - ?`
A7-: -EIS `+O At IRS
{?Q?+n oa..a ?,.. ws m.s wa w.m?.m. o,cn +<
Aa
/ ltf.. /? 4ilr0li t( V?gtyU fa 16 ML u.LSi 1Q 6 A OwQ
• / _`y A25, /? ?1t Ua O, a1 tisO IULL.v6 16 ?nwr.tl, V a<c
/ Af _ Qc_ ? ? al?tOi Y. i ,ED urv 1a A ,® ?N ,o o[iID ?( (f)
MOE / / A10 - - ^?' ( ?/ MAD 113 cNS b.+c >In Ms..o, Ma N.¢ vanc ac ..n
toR3 O ovals c>tw au4A.a erva.
N 602614.42
y?OL / // A,1 -.•'.? ? A? %? ? bL ? [453903.07
, C1/ 1{lam 0.w:
/ A14
03 A15 RN 7.aC
07 2 IMP` ?l R1IX K Bo1 1 tXllT7Y MAT THS PUT -Al DRAM U10pt MT
A14 9FERMSK3N FROM AN AMAL AARIEY MADE U" MT SUV(N30N A
E23 A17 M
/ / AT TIE SiIRVEY IS OF AN ELDSING IAR01 OR PARCELS OF LAND (1 Q
E22 AND DOES NOT CREATE A NEW 'STREET DR CNAHM AN DCST09G '
/ E24 . Bs m STRa I. MS S PuT WAS PREPARED N AMORDANM VM
/ WETLAND-0 MATCHUNE GS 47-30 AS AMENDED. WTMESS MY oR"AL SIGNATURE ROSTRATDN' I
r? ?? ..... ?. NU.HP AND SEAL MS ? DA7 OF . L T A-0.. N03 N
/
TYSINGER &
PARTNERS, PLLC
Solutions for the Future
ENCINEERS • SURVEYORS
PLANNERS •GEOLOGISTS
3428 BRISTOL HWY.
JOHNSON CITY. TENNESSEE 37601
(423) 2a2-2687
[phone] FAX
thpOt ysin gw-enq in eerie q. tom
Mtp: //Nw.tysi+ger-mginevinq.c(m
SURVEY FOR
HORNE
PROPERTIES
SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF
RIVER BEND
BUSINESS PARR
P.LN.g 9658.15-52-4618
WARD 7 ASHEVILLE TWP.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C.
REF. D.B. 1838-PG. 612
DRAWING TTTIE :
IIETIAANX
IACATION
REV. - ADDED DITCH MOTHS AND
CHANCED DITCH CENTER LINE. 7/79/03.
ISSUE DATE :
CAD FILE : 0221501s-Metlonds.drq
SCALE : 1'-100'1 DWC. NO.
DRAWN RKT
CHECK ' RKD 0221501S
DATE : 7/10/03
F(GiAtza 9 SH 2 of 4
1
a
w
,-1
Qi Y
Ug
(/) O
U g ?
x
a r
8
11CAR1 r'1A%
OQ?. a's [ .. *-.
i.y?
SEAL S
:? L -Nw ?:,,V=
- - M 0 CS' w CaK /? ?r
ztez' oN. / /
??• ' // // QS`?#
/ / En
/ sw
r/ / E27E
;•i i
--mATCH LINE ------ TYSINGER &

E14 VO DI ? at)G
Eas D13 RIVER SEND BUSNM PARK t
oz DII TRACT I 1
// I Ea RETLAND-D D.B. 1838-PG 612 JJJJ
ikkksss ° w .! on I
c4 In , , 01 !j
D6 ,
C7
?4.DO f3 D7
?f u os
04 1c, WETLAND-C
.yx°"° ?.??oaNfOU?Aa M ML Nalit .QE 6. ouw4
E RYS 10 M YL 16 Ltlrv r4 ?Ne YRDK M ?f) I
1 ot. 0 Pa®° Rv d(?v .w.?l
an! cow_
MoN.
RQL
MOM
L RICK K TIONEIIS. (p(TfV THAT MS PLAT AS DRAW NmOI MY
9JPERwSIDN ( AN ACTUAL SUW EY MADE UNDER MY SIRRMWN
THAT THE 9„RKY IS Of AN OCSTNC PARCEL CR PARCELS OE LAND
AND DOES NOT CREATE A NEW STREET OR CHANCE AN EV"K
STREET: THAT TNS PUT WAS PREPARED N ACCORDANCE NTH
4S. 47-30 AS AMENDED. WHESS MY ORIOUL S CHATURE, RECISTRATI01
MAIKR AND SEAL DNS }.t'- DAY OF }Lr_ A.D.. 2W3
PARTNERS, PLLC
Solutions for the Futux
ENGINEERS • SURVEYDRS
PLANNERS •GEOLOGISTS
3428 BRISTOL HM'Y.
JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE 37601
[phone]
[phone] FAX
lhpotys inW-engit eerinq. can
http: //. .tysnge -engnetNing.can
4
.;?
SURVEY FOR :
r HORNS
PBDPBftTISS
S SURVEY OF PROPEFrrY OF
RIVER BM
BUSINESS PARS
W P.I.N.# 9658.15-52-4618
R WARD 7 ASHEVI= TWP.
U - BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C.
U) $
REF. D.B. 1838-PG. 612
U
S
x <
DRAWING TUTS
a a
a ° WETLANM
LOCATION

REV. - ADDED p•wtOTTHS; AND
JIT N
CHANGED DITCH CENTER LINE. 7/18/03.
8
ISSl1E DATE :
t41311CI 11101", CAD FiLE : 02215011-wettonds.dwg
EX
`ma -
'
??o
y : -1D0
SCALE : I DwC. NO.
2•? SEAL DRAWN . RKT
f L- `
CHECK : RKB 0221501S
7DR?.
DATE : 7/10/03
T 7 t7f FibuaE $ SF1 3 of 4
WETLAND - B
PIN FLAG
MMBCR BEARING DISTANCE
Bt

B2 N 354513" W 34.82'
B3 N 3175'55" W 11.69'
84 S 8214'05' w 19"
BS S 35'4ro1" E 24 7T
SST E 13.46'
N 54''41' E 39r

0.015 Ac.t
WETLAND - C
NN TUG
NUMBER
2EMMG
DISTANCE
cl " '
C2 S 865511
E
'
' 20.49
'
U M 0656
w
01
'
' 50.36
'
CA N "16
w
30
.
' 2431
'
CS N 7455
40
W
'
' 21.54
C6 w
S 3455
19
'
" 3127
'
C1 S 1G16
w
J3
' 19.61
'
- 4227-44
E
'
' 1690
'
- S 7119
29
E SStS
0.078 Ac.t

WETLAND - D
PN nAc
AVM" BEARING DISTANCE
Dl

DI S 71"4649" C 29.63'
03 S 2914'23' E 14.52"
W S 6629047- E 17.3r
DS S 591015" E 1575'

06 N 69"l9'N" E 14.65
07 N 75''09' E 2571'
C.
N 7154'43- E
31.91'
09 N 7775'OY w 26.55
DID S 65'41'2Y W 2019"
D11 S 3523'12- W 25.23'
012 N 55'45'te' w 41.09'
N 2716.39' w 1
5.25'
i
d N enrol-
w 14.71'
DI
s 46 3'36
w s T
.o

0.040 Ac.t
GENERAL NOTES
1.- TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION IS A
COMBINATION OF FIELD RUN TOPO AND
INFORMATION TAKEN FROM AERIAL SURVEY
PROVIDED BY TUCK ENGINEERING
P.O. BOX 760
1928 WILDCAT RD.
BIG STONE GAP. VA. 24219
2.- VERTICAL DATUM NGVO 29.
M 2040(5 IMf M 1tr w M 141 Am4uRQ?lNl1T K
_ ? ?Am n~ ? e a icv?i
SURVEY MR
H\ILLN9
PROPERTIES
SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF
RIVER BEND
BUSINESS PARR
P.I.N.# 9658.15-52-4618
WARD 7 ASHEVILLE TWP.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY. N.C.
REF. D.B. 1838-PG. 612
DRAWING Trr E :
WETLANDS
LOCATION
L Not IC 60%UM CDITITT MAT TM PLAT WAS ONAM UMM MT
9F0t.90N f M ACNA "I" MADE VDU MT 9sonv0N
C?TTDZTE}V
S R E 1
THAT M StM'.[T K ( M 1JPSTW PMM m PAMM3 a LAND
ANI o N l a lTE A 7-c. STaT a CKWCE M Oat194
REV. - ADDED DITCH WIDTHS AND
snIQT; t T 1m /sAT ? P wll N AccuwL¢ W111
GS 47-30 AS A-c-m. wKA - oll I 9A'AM.TUIE 1lEO3TIAT1p1 CHANGED DITCH CENTER LINE. 7/18/03.
NANeD1 Ao SIX INS -12- DAT or •.. A0_ 2003 ISSUE DATE
`LS13411 lll1,11
`,
L
1t
` A/?O
? CAD FILE : 02215O1s-.eUords.d.9
?
i
f [s?
ma
?
?
/o .
y
'o
O
4 SCALE . NONE DWG. NO.
.7
1
SEAL DRAMA RKT
7D L-3892 r' y =

0.
;
4e t?°
CH
ECK RKB

221501S
?
su4L+ 3, ?.
"'• '
DATE
7
10
03

gp `? -
/
/
:
SH 4
f 4
,&L-A S o
TYSINGER &
PARTNERS, PLLC
Solutions for the Futurr
ENGINEERS . SURVEYORS
PLANNERS -GEOLOGISTS
3428 BRISTOL HWY.
JOHNSON CITY. TENNESSEE 37601
[phone]
[phone] FAX
thpOtysng -en9ineer'v+9. Can
6ttp://w .tysngd-wginetrin9.Com

Horne Properties, Inc.
Clearwater Riverbend Marketplace
Envi r onnmme ental
Consultants
I; -1, A Representative Channel Photographs
August2003
N.T.S.
83012-001
Figure 6
Cleav for , Horne Properties, Inc. Augus12003
Environmental Riverbend Marketplace N.T.S.
Consultants 83012-001
Reprosentative Channol Photographs Figure 7
Es?l?it?;

Clearwater Horne Properties, Inc. August2003
Environmental Riverbend Marketplace N.T.S.
Consultants 83012-001
4 „I Representative Channel Photographs Figure 8
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Saylcs-Biltmore Bleachcrics Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whonon State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yea No Community ID: PSSb
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transect ID: Wetland A
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location: Adjacent to Ditch
'13"
f needed, explain on the reverse side
V hUL I A-11Un
Dominant Plant Species t stlNCotnmon Stratum Indicator Plant 5 ka IAtln/CoM1non Stratum Indicator
Salix nigra Shrub FACW Saururus cernuus Herb OBL
Juncos e,JJusus Herb FACW+ Sedge (Carex spp.) Herb FACW
Impatiens pallida Herb FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 5/5 100 % FAC Neutral
Numeric Index: / a
/ %
%
Remarks: Evidence of hydrophytic vegetation present. Area is a scrub-shrub and emergent wetland. Area is located
adjacent to Ditch B where excavated deposits from ditch have created a berm that backs water up into this area.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream.Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
I Water Marks
No Recorded Data Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
Field Observations I Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. (lay Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water In Pit: 10 (la)> x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 (tay Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks)

Remarks: Evidence of hydrology present
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Sayles-Biltmore Bieacheries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID-
SOtD 4
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Udorthcnts-Urban Land Complex wenano w
Map Symbol: 13 Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Proilk Description
Depth
(Inches) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
unsell Moist unsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc
0-12 A 2.5 Y 5/2 10 YR 4/4 Common/Distinct Slay Loam
_

Ilydric soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
a Reducing Conditions Listed on National IIydric Soils List
x Gleycd or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Evidence of hydric soils present.
nc¦+,tu?u uL1LKMlt4A 1lUPl
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point within the Wctland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
II dric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: This area meets the 1987 Corps of Enginars Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional
wetlands. However, this area lies adjacent to ditch that was previously delineated as non jurisdictional.
Because of its location, this wetland may be identified as an isolated wetland.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Sayles-Biltmore Bleachcries Project No: 327 Date:
County: 6.17.03
Buncombe
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants State: NC
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y.& No Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location: Adjacent to Wet A
If needed, explain on the reverse side
VEGETATION
Plant SIn tin/Common
Sttmtum
Indicator
Plant Spectra (LtWCornmon)
Stratum
indicator
Liriodendron fulipijera Mid FAC Dioscbrea villosa Herb FAC
Carpinus caroliniano Mid FAC Waianrhemum racemosum Herb FAC-
Rhododendron conescens Shrub FACW-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 4/5 80 % FAC Neutral
Numeric Index:
/ %
%
Remarks: Marginal evidence of hydrophytic vegetation.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Strcam,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Field Observations
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (In.)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (ta)> Oxidised Root Channels In Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No indicators of hydrology.
d
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Saylcs-Biltmore Bleacheries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
County: Buncombe
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants State:
investigators: J. Andrew Whorton Plot ID:
Unland A
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): uooru?c??u ° -- 111appcd IIy'dric Inclusions?
Map symbol: 13 Drainage Class:
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
Profile Description Mottle Texture, Conereti,
Depth I IIortzon Matrix Color 1liottle Color
finches) unsell Moist unsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Clay Lo mcture, etc
0-15 A/B 10 YR 4/3
iyanc sou ..?W Concretions
_ IIistosol _-
_ Iiistic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ ultidic Odor
S
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local IIydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National 11y'dric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other. (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks: No evidence of hydric soils present.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
D dric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: This area does not meet the 1987 Corp,
jurisdictional wetlands.
the Sampling Point within the Wctland? Yes
s criteria for
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Saylcs-Biltmore Bleacheries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner.. Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: PSS1
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yea No Transat ID: Wetland B
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location: Just upstream of
Wetland A
(If needed, explain on the reverse side
VEGETATION
Ibmhianl Plant S lea lANn/Common Stratum Indicator Plant S is Latin/Common Stratum Indicator
Salixnigra Shrub FACW
Juncus efJ'usus Herb FAC W+
Impatiens pallida Herb FACW
Percent or Dominant Species that are OBI, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 3/3 100 % FAC Neutral / m %
Numeric Index: / %
Remarks: Evidence of hydrophytic vegetation present.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other x Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Drift L1nes
Sediment Deposits
Fleld Observations I Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Depth or Surface Water: N/a (In.)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water In Pit: NIS (la)> Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (la)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks: Evidence of hydrology present.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Saylcs-Biltmore Bleachcries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner. CleanvaterEnvironmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID:
SOILS

Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): wcuanD u
Udorthcnts-Urban Land Complex
Map Symbol: Drainage Class: Mapped IIydric Inclusions?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description
Depth
(Inches) IIori7AD Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
unsell Moist tunsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, eta
0.12 A 2.5Y 4/2 7.5 YR 5/4 Common/Distinct Clay Loam

IIydric toll Indicators
_ IIistosol Concretions
Wstic Epipcdon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulftdic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local IIydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National IIydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other. (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Evidence of hydric soils present.
n r.?Lnl?U L/GtEKMiNArIVN
IIydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
II dric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: This area meets the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional
wetlands.
-------- --- -
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yea No Community ID: Upland
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transeet ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ya No Field Location: Adjacent to Wet B
(If needed, explain on the reverse side
V I; U LTATI O N
Dominant Plant S el 1AUDICommon Stratum Indicator Plant S lea lAlin/Common Stratum Indlcator
Liguidambar styraciflua Can FAC Dioscorea villosa Herb FAC
Liriodendron tulipffera Mid FAC Malanthemum racemosum Herb FAC-
Carpinus caroliniana Mid FAC
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC- 415 so % FAC Neutral
Numeric Index: /
/ %
%
Remarks: Marginal evidence of hydrophytic vegetation
HVDRO1.0f:V
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (In.)> Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)

Remarks: No indicators of hydrology.
R 1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Sayles-Biltmore Bleachcries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID:
SOILS
tt.,to. A T4
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Udorthcnts-Urban Land Complex
Map Symbol: 13 Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Iifappcd Hydric Inclusions?
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description
Depth
(Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
unscll Moist Mottle Color
unsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure etc.
0-I5 A/B 10 YR 4/3 Clay Loam

Ifydric soil Indicators
_ Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor High Organic Content in Surface Laycr in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No evidence of hydric soils present.
Wr ILAND DEI ERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
H ydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: This area does not meet the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for
jurisdictional wetlands.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1887 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Saylcs-Biltmore Bleachcrics Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: PSS
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yu No Transect ID: Wetland C
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location: Near soutlicm
portion of the
property
(if needed, explain on the reverse side
v r.vc1na-l
Dominant Plant S es IAIWCommon
Stratum
Indicator
Plant Swim LatWCOnunon
Straitum
Indicator
Salixnigra Shrub FACW
Juncus effusus Herb FACW+
impatiens pallida Herb FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excludin FAC-) 3/3 100 % FAC Neutral %
Numeric Index: / %
Remarks: Evidence of hydrophytic vegetation present.
iiyunvwva
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Acrial Photographs Inundated
Other x Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
I Water Marks
No Recorded Data Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
Field Observations Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. N/a (in.)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water In Pit: N/a (in.)> Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (In.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Evidence of hydrology present.
It
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Sayles-Biltmore Bieacheries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID:
Wetland C
yMap Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Map Symbol: Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Udoethents
Mapped IIydric Inclusions?
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth
(Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
unsell Moist Mottle Color
unsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-12 A 2.5Y 4/2 10 YR 4/4 Common/Distinct Clay, sand

IIydric soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Laycr in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_
a Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
r Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other. (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Evidence of hydre soils.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point within the Wctland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
II dric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: This area moots the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional
wetlands.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
Y Z
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owncr: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ED: PSS
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transect ID: upland
L the area a potential Problem Arca? Yes No Field Location: Adjacent to wet C
H needed explain on the reverse side
Dominant Plant S ira lAtin/Common Stratum Indicator Punt Species LatWCommon Stratum Indicator
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tuli era) Canopy FAC White Pine (Pinus strobes) Canopy FACU
Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolla) Shrub FACU Red Maple Canopy FAC

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC- 2/4 SO % FAC Neutral
Numeric Index: / v %
%
Remarks: No evidence of hydrophytic vegetation.
rrvnnnr nr_v
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (ta)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water In Pit: N/A (in.)' Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No indicators of hydrology.
t ? x
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID:
SOLI R
51ap Unit Name (Series and Phase): Tate Loam
Map Symbol: 121C Drainage Class : Well Drained Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm 1lfapped Type? Yes
Profile Description
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) tunsell hioist unsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc
0-6 A IOYR 5/4 Clay Loam
6-12 A IOYR 4/3 Clay Loam

Hydric soil Indicators
_ H1310501 Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Laycr in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No evidence of hydre soils present.
Wr.?LAPIU Ilk; Ik;KMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
H dric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: This area does not meet the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for
jurisdictional wetlands.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
i t t
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Sayles-Biltmore Blcachcrics Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whotton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: PFOIC
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transmt ID: Wetland D
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location: Secp near Ditch B
f needed, explain on the reverse side
v GLAa.-
Domtnant Plant 9r.-des 1.atin/Common
Stratum
Indkdor
Plant S es I.stln/Commnn
Stratum
Indlrs(or
Acer rubrum Canopy FAC Impatiens pallida Herb OBL
Sambucuscanadensis Shrub FACW Xanthorhizasimplicissima Herb FACW
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Mid FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 4/4 100 % FAC Neutral
Numeric Index: / =
/ %
%
Remarks: Evidence of h)drophytic vegetation present.
HY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stmam,Iake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
I Water Marks
No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations x Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. N/A (la)- Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water in Pit: t (in.)> x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0(surf) (Ia.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks: Evidence of hydrology present. This wetland is a linear drainage seep that is vegetated.
DROLOGY
1 x
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1857 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ject/Site: Bayles Biltmore Blcachcries Project No: 327 Date: 6.17.03
Pro County: Buncombe
Applicantlowner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants State: NC
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton Plot ID:
Wetland D
OILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Map Symbol: Drainage Class: Yes No
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type?
profile Description Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Color
I unsell Moist lunscll Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc
(Inches) Cla Loam
n_tz A 10 YR 4/1
ydric soil Indicators Concretions
_ IIistosol _ --
_ IIistic Epipedon Iilgh Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
/ETLAND DETERMINATION
to Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes No
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
11
H dric Soils Present? 11
11 Remarks: This area mcets the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional
wetlands.
? t
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro
/Site: Sayler-Biltmore Bicachcries ject No: 327

.17.03
Date:
County: Buncombe
ner: Clearwate r Enviroruncntal. Consultants
Applicant/O'v State: NC
E
gators: I. Andrew Wlrorton Plot ID:
yp No COmmunlty ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ys, No Transtxt ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)?
Yes No Field Locatio
n: Adjacent to wet D
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
f needed, explain on the reverse side
VEGETATION
nn Stratum Indicator

DominantP6nlS 1nI,alWC0mm
Plmt S In IatWCommon

Stratum

Indkator
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron Canopy FAC White Pine (Pinar slrobus) Canopy FACU
tulipfera)
Mountain laurel (Kalmio latifolia)
Shrub
FACU
Red Maple
Canopy
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: FAC Neutral
m %
/

50 % Numeric Index:
(excluding FAC-) 2/4
/ %
Remarks: No evidence of hydrophytic vegetation.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs inundated
saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations
NIA
(lap Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water:

N/A Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
(lap
Depth to Free Water In Pit:

NIA
Depth to saturated Soil:
(la)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No indicators of hydrology.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1887 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries Project No: 327 Dale: 6.17.03
Applicant/Owner: Clearwater Environmental. Consultants County: Buncombe
Investigators: J. Andrew Whorton State: NC
Plot ID:
cnrr c
Umland D
JMap Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Map Symbol: 121C Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Tate Loam
Well Drained Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Ycs
Profile Description
Depth
(inches) Horizon Matrix Color
funsell Moist Mottle Color
tunsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, ctc.
0-6 A IOYR 5/4 Clay Loam
6-12 A IOYR 4/3 Clay Loam

Hydric loll Indicators
Histosol Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipcdon High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sultidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_
_ Gleycd or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No evidence of hydric soils present.
WF;'1'L"V Dh I LKMMA 11U11
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point within the Wctland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
II dric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: This area does not meet the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for
jurisdictional wetlands.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
I 1
Ir?rl
STREAM EVALUATION WORKSHEET
I. PROJECT INFORMATION /
,.Applicant's name: DI ne Pi?dtr {ieS , rrL_ 2. Evaluator's name:-,T And tc-11 l..?her ?sr,
3. USACE Action ID Number: 4. DWQ Number:
if. SITE INFORMATIO
1. Date of evaluation: -O 4 ?S/o3 2, Time of evaluation:
3. Name of stream: LA-yt +0 SWANNOPJo f rC( yf/t 4. River basin: FrCCS?cr+ ?K„?v
5. Approximate drainage area: .32 ac./c jr 6. County: 6Lar?Gorp t.e
7. Location: . Aa vex r t Lot.trEV AD.TKENr 7a Sur4r wlt.vo? /Lt ucil a w .uo end
OF =NrtrxirnrE y0, 4r- s4,1c.'rS- 9ie7,-fo•zE Q -a ?,tE•G t rr L
8. Length ofreach evaluated: ? ; /-.A 9. Proposed channel work:-- .vat
10. Recent weather conditions: 1 rfc,NQeA.I TK rN1 D • r- L0??? lnc? orC /a t..
11. Site conditions at time of visit: AA r r l7t lr?w DANCE A,?n IILPA" "9.. A,,t l
12. Is channel located in a Water Supply Watershed? YES NO Ifyes, describe:
13. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0 Ifyes, estimate the water surface area:
14. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0 NO 15. Does
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 0 NO
16. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential -12 % Commercial c?S% Industrial _% Agricultural
.30 % Forested 1 d %Cleared / Logged 1(: % Other (_ T?urea7r+rl?.to?of )
17. Channel width at top of bank: Q FF6 r 2. Bank height from bed to op of bank: P - ?0 FEE r
18. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 4°0) -Steep (> I O%)
19. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Ill. OBSERVATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (see reverse)
Observations should be based on assessment of entire reach of channel under evaluation. Individual characteristic scores must be
within the range shown for a particular ecoregion (there are no specific boundaries for the coastal, piedmont, or mountain
ecoregions, and it is up to the evaluator to determine the most appropriate ecoregion, which is to be used for all characteristics). The
total score assigned to the stream channel must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a channel with the highest
possible assessment of quality. If a particular characteristic cannot be evaluated, write NA in the scoring box, provide an
explanation in the comment section, and correct the score by multiplying the Total Score by 100 and dividing the resulting sum by
the adjusted maximum point value. See notes on page 3 for a brief description of characteristics identified in the worksheet.
Total Score (from reverse): 33 Comments: T/ftf Ag nan. OF STita ow. 666nu1
Evaluator's Signature / I . /f'f7-/L1 /_,u- Da
'This channel evaluation form is Intended only to be used as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals
gather the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers In order to make a preliminary assessment of stream
I I i
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
a

d
F

V
O
a
0
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in
stream
2 Evidence of past human alteration
3 Riparian Zone
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical
discharges
5 Groundwater discharge
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
3 Presence of Adjacent Wetlands
9 Channel Sinuosity
10 Sediment input
I I Size & diversity of channel bed
substrate
12 Evidence of channel incision or
widcnin
13 Presence of major bank failures
14 Vegetation coverage on banks
15 Root depth and density on banks
16 Impact by agriculture or livestock
production
17 Presence of riffle-pool steps
18 Habitat complexity
19 Canopy coverage over streambcd
20 Substrate embeddedness
21 Presence of stream invertebrates
22 Presence of mollusks or crustaceans
23 Presence of amphibians
24 Presence of fish
25 Evidence of wildlife use
I Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(no flow or saturation - 0• strong flow 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(extensive alteration - 0• no alteration 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(no vegetation - 0• extensive vegetation 4)
coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(extensive discharges - 0• no discharges 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
_(no discharge - 0• springs seeps wetlands etc Al
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
_(no floodplain - 0• broad undeveloped floodplain
Coastal, 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
-(fully entrenched - 0• regular floodplain access 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(no wetlands - 0• large adjacent wetlands 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(extensive channelization = 0• natural meander 4)
Coastal: 0-4 -Fired mont:0-4 Mountain: 0-4
-(extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Ptedmont:0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(fine, homogenous - 0• large diverse sizes ==4)
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain- 0-4
(deeply incised - 0• stable bed & banks 4)
Coastal, 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
-(severe erosion - 0• no erosion stable banks 4)
Coastal, 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
-(fully exposed banks - 0. 100% coverage 4)
Coastal, 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(no visible roots - 0• dense roots throughout 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(substantial impact -0• no evidence 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Pjedmont:0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well developed 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
little or no habitat - 0: frequent varied habitats 4)
Coastal, 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no shading vegetation - 0• continuous canopy 4)
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
dce I embedded - 0• loose structure = 4
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous type- -4
Coastal: 0-4 Picdmont:0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(no evidence - 0• common numerous t es -A%
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous es =4
Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous t es =4
Coastal: 0-4 Picdmont:0-4 Mountnin:0-4
{none evidence ? 0; abundant evidenrr = a?
I
Q
.3
O
33
S'. ( 1 -
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 6F NO
STREAM EVALUATION WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Applicant's name: 6"a PaeeE? nor N4_ 2. Evaluator's name: S 410 K c"U ? wdla-
3. USACE Action ID Number: 4. DWQ Number:
I1. SITE INFORMATION
1. Date of cvaluation: Q ?- 1-1 -S 2. Time of evaluation: .?
3. Name of stream: to 7- - To SugNNr1 NOr Q R. i aei 4. River basin:--- FGa cd
5. Approximate drainage area:- -1? o)- c J 6. County: LSr, ;??2,rrlS.f
7. Location: 2 opF?ti L 0 1- r4TL D 7096- L? J1iEF,u T/Fif Su?a.?.+?ryw4 /Ir?E?f
__/>t?? ZN7,_rtrntT? ?lU, 47- Tiff cdIIL.4=1'- Q-,?Lr-,46,z a -ate&C,c F1 4f,cC
8. Length of reach evaluated: .353 L. F 9. Proposed channel work: fit: , ',e-r /F« C
10. Recent weather conditions:- T/4c4rj0& 54f nwo&i n ?'- n 7r Z,,, tt p - U/,-j
11. Site conditions at time of visit: Pr?r r" D 4 Nocdrfw&& h /!OM s1LE.9cri Eity /s/r C C A ? r
qtr,
12. Is channel located in a Water Supply Watershed? YES (!9 If yes, describe:
13. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the eva luation point? YES 0) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
14. Does channel appear on USGS quad ma 7 40 NO 15. Does
19. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Ill. OBSERVATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (see reverse)
Obacrvations should be based on assessment of entire reach of channel under evaluation. Individual characteristic scores must be
within the range shown for a particular ecoregion (there are no specific boundaries for the coastal, piedmont, or mountain
eco•egions, and it is up to the evaluator to determine the most appropriate ecoregion, which is to be used for all characteristics). The
total score assigned to the stream channel must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a channel with the highest
possible assessment of quality. If a particular characteristic cannot be evaluated, write NA in the scoring box, provide an
explanation in the comment section, and correct the score by multiplying the Total Score by 100 and dividing the resulting sum by
the adjusted maximum point value. See notes on page 3 for a brief description of characteristics identified in the worksheet.
?4
16. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential -Z f% Commercial pjr-1. Industrial Agricultural
.3. Q % Forested U %Clearcd / Logged 1 -60/. Other ( L'w3X cfM; /,k?yaf 1
17. Channel width at top of bank: F6 r 2. Bank height from bed to top of bank:- G FBET
18. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 tot%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 4%) -Steep (> l0°r),
Evaluator's Signature // 4A- !-,? Date 0;- /.1r/63
`This channel evaluation form Is Intended only to be used as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professlonals
gather the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engloeers in order to make a preliminary assessment of stream

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' L"'. F .Y.. i?t TI/:rS SJS Ly t G1 fi'tl'ai LZ
r7R'
:-
Y
1 Presence of flow/ persistent pools in Coastal. 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain 0-4
stream no flow or saturation - 0• strop flow - 4
2 Evidence of past human alteration Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
extensive alteration - 0 no alteration = 4
3 Riparian Zone Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no ve etation - 0• extensive ve etation - 4
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical Coastal: 04 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
discharges extensive dischar es - 01 no discharges - 4
5 Groundwater discharge Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 04
no discharge n 0• s
i
r
ps sees wetlands etc. - 4
V 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4

no flood lain - 0• broad undeveloped flood lain - O
Aw 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access Coastal: 0-4 Pi
dont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4

full entrenched ular flood lain access- 4 O
8 Presence of Adjacent Wetlands Coastal 0-4 ont:0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no wetands - a adjacent wetlands- 4
(?
9 Channel Sinuosity Coasl: ont: 0-4 Mountain: 4-4
extensive chnnnen - 0 natural meander - 4 (?
10 Sediment input Coastal: 0? Pnt: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
extensive de sit• little or no sediment - 4
l
1 Size do diversity of channel bed Coastal: 0-4 Pnt: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
substrate fine home eno• lar a diverse sizes - 4 (?
12 Evidence of channel incision or Coastal: 0-4 Pnt: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
widenin dtable bed & banks - 4
13 Presence of major bank failures Co 4W- 0" Pnt: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
mmra erosion - erosion stable banks - 4
uble
14 Vegetation coverage on banks Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0? Mountain: 0-4
full exposed banks - 0. 1oo% covers e - 4
N 15 Root depth and density on banks Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0..4 Mountain: 0-4
no visible roots - 0• dense roots throughout 4
16 Impact by agriculture or livestock Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mou-4
Production substantial i91ad -0• no evidenc
17 Presence ofrifflo-poolsteps Coutal:0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Moun-4

no riflles/well-deve4 O
18 Habitat complexity Coastal:
Piedmont: 0-4 Moun4
little habi4t fr uent varied h= 4
19 Canopy coverage over streambed Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Moun4
no 0continuous c4 v
20 Substrate emboddedness Coastal:0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Moun4
d 1 embedded - 0• l ^\

21
Presence of stream invertebrates se structur
oa¢al0•-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4 (J

no evidence - 0• common numerous es -4 O
?. 22 Presence of mollusks or crustaceans Coastal: 0"4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous =4
G 23 Presence of a Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous es -4
24 Presenc Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
n
oevidence - 0• common numerous cs -A%
25 Evidence of wildlife use CoasW: 0 4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-
r.,.....,a. . ?_...-? -._ .
t', ( {. A
STREAM EVALUATION WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT 1NF RAIATION
1. Applicant's name: IrCevE P,toPE.?7 tE? 2:.+L 2. Evaluator's name: ? 1410 rzXs" "Oe7-6,,,
3. USACE Action ID Number: 4. DWQ Number:
IL SITE INFORMATION
1. Date of evaluation: O 5' (d ? 3 2. Time of evaluation: Ror?r
3. Name of stream: (AT- -tin SW 4n+Ni4n.oi4 7fiprt 4. River basin: F/?ENCrr Q2o?1A
5. Approximate drainage area: -I-C- 20 A495 6. County: f?, t-om dE
7. Location: _8 dP?5 2T4 / oQ*7En IgDJ?e ntT?/1?TaEFav -C, ztn 11V?F,)01* ?zar-t 4j„
1-,l2Si4n-- d-t(0 A S4W-61 -ltr.&,,z alFi9tfi?r? F M-f-f.
8. Length of reach evaluated: :,A ?L F. 9. Proposed channel work: Fr«
10. Recent weather conditions: l r{ tirvoE.t STDR..? D - O ?S 0"gcrs. /t ,,,J
11. Site conditions at time of visit: ,44 t r A, f nA QAruc46 Faan &r. L.& Lf rKrcc ' /tE.,?.?rr ? c - ar,,,i iC D7pt
12. Is channel located in a Water Supply Watershed? YES 45 If yes, describe: TD L r/tE4r.,
13. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0I17 yes, estimate the water surface area:
14. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? © NO 15. Does
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 0 NO , r
16. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential Commercial ?% Industrial Agricultural
_Q% Forested ! 0 %Cleared / Logged a% Other ( 1;, r4f4 r*rz5/&, 0; 1
17. Channel width at top of bank: R F6/?T 2. Bank height from bed to top of bank:- 6 FEET
18. Channel slope down cen r of stream: l% Flat (0 to2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 4%) _Steep (>101/a'),
19. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
III. OBSERVATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (see reverse)
Observations should be based on assessment of entire reach of channel under evaluation. Individual characteristic scores must be
within the range shown for a particular ecoregion (there are no specific boundaries for the coastal, piedmont, or mountain
ccoregions, and it is up to the evaluator to determine the most appropriate ecoreglon, which is to be used for all characteristics). The
total score assigned to the stream channel must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a channel with the highest
possible assessment of quality. If a particular characteristic cannot be evaluated, write NA in the scoring box, provide an
explanation in the comment section, and correct the score by multiplying the Total Score by 100 and dividing the resulting sum by
the adjusted maximum point value. See notes on page 3 for a brief description of characteristics identified in the worksheet.
Total Score (from reverse):
C.rE
Evaluator's Signature /`f' lt-- Date- S taf.*,
"This channel evaluation form Is intended only to be used as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals
gather the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers In order to make a preliminary assessment of stream

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
W CORE
;1
~ .
Presence of flow / persistent pools in Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
1 stream no flow or saturation - 0• strong flow - 4
2 Evidence ofpast human alteration Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
extensive alteration - 0• no alteration - 4
3 Riparian Zone Could: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no v etation - 0• extensive vegetation - 4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 04
4 discharges extensive discharges - 0• no discharges - 4
5 Groundwater discharge Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4 D
no discharge - 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. - 4
U
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no flood lain - 0• broad undeveloped flood lain -
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain seeps Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-
full entrenched - 0• re ular flood lain access- 4
E Presence of Adjacent Wetlands Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
j
no wetlands - 0• large ad
acent wetlands- 4
9 Channel Sinuosity Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
extensive channelization - 0• natural meander - 4
10 Sediment input Coastal. 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4 O
extensive e position- 0• little or no sediment - 4
I I Size dt diversity of channel bed Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4 O
substrate fin homogenous - 04 large, diverse sizes - 4
Evidence of channel incision or Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-
12 widening d 1 incised - 0• stable bed & banks - 4
13 Presence of major bank failures Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
severe erosion - 0• no erosion stable banks - 4
14 Vegetation coverage on banks Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
full exposed banks - 09 100% coverage - 4
H
V1
15
Root depth and density on banks Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no visible roots - 0• dense roots throu hout - 4
16 Impact by agriculture or livestock Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
14
roduction substantial impact -0• no evidence - 4)
17 Presence of riffle-pool steps Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 04 Mountain: 04
no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed - 4
E
l Habitat complexity Coastal: 0-1 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
little or no habitat - 0 uen varied habitats - 4
19 Canopy coverage over streambed Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no shading vegetation - 0• continuous canopy - 4
20 Substrata embeddedness Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
dee I embedded - 0• loose structure - 4 lJ
21 Presence of stream invertebrates Coastal: 04 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: O-
no evidence - 0• common numerous types -4
22 Presence of mollusks or crustaceans Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous typ es -4
S 23 Presence of amphibians Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
p no evidence - 0• common numerous types -4
w 24 Presence offish coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous types -4
25 Evidence of wildlife use Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: G-4 Mountain: 0-4 ?1
none evidence - 0 abtmdant evidence - 4 (J
r ? n

s s
STREAM EVALUATION WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION /
1. Applicant's name: 1-{orityc Preo.Q??77L1 ANC 2. Evaluator's name: -0 461 Df"" Q1terG-dnl
3. USACE Action ID Number: 4. DWQ Number:
14. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (E? NO 15. Does
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 6NO
16. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential 'L% Commercial Industrial _% Agricultural
3. Name of stream: Ur- lb S-r1- v4..,erf &1 4' 4. River basin: Fit NeM d fowl)
5. Approximate drainage area: e2S= r> i4c w6S_ 6. County: 6k.-J6 , q a z
7. Location: ^?ti1zr Lo[?rS4 (7127-1.1--LIJ Z;4 tE&JPW71C *1q0 ef-0 St,rr?nd?.MrvnR ?L,v1rt
/1-7- .Sir t4.6s- ?tcTnro fr4crrs.LrEt of/4,L -
8. Length of reach evaluated: 9. Proposed channel work: Ct4Lu4.t r.1 F!<<
10. Recent weather conditions: 7-HkrunSeU1 arc.. , 6.s-- O ?S i.+crr .t.+..,.
- - G. Ifree?.??i,j M1L/ r!A(?tJr SEOrwr6.+f 6c
D.,cr 1-Sn 1w. w -
11. Site conditions at time ofvisit:
12. Is channel located in a Water Supply Watershed? YES CJ If yes, describe:
13. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (.ptt7 If ycs, estimate the water surface area:
if. SITE INFORMATION
1. Date of evaluation: D 7' 2. Time of evaluation: 3- 3 o r?
3Q°/a Forested Lb %Cleared / Logged jQ% Other (T-inwatT6 MoropS 1
17. Channel width at top of bank: tom' Ase- r 2. Bank height from bed to top of bank: S F40-r
18. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 tot%) ?Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 4%) -Steep (>l0%.)--
19. Channel sinuosity: -tl-lls-traight -Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Ill. OBSERVATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (see reverse)
Observations should be based on assessment of entire reach of channel under evaluation. Individual characteristic scores must be
within the range shown for a particular ecoregion (there are no specific boundaries for the coastal, piedmont, or mountain
ecoregions, and it is up to the evaluator to determine the most appropriate ecoregion, which is to be used for all characteristics). The
total score assigned to the stream channel must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a channel with the highest
possible assessment of quality. If & particular characteristic cannot be evaluated, write NA in the scoring box, provide an
explanation in the comment section, and correct the score by multiplying the Total Score by 100 and dividing the resulting sum by
the adjusted maximum point value. See notes on page 3 for a brief description of characteristics identified in the worksheet.
I Score (from reverse): ?S Comments: T*S 44cm &ta,ecM r/) Rrst.,,.,J AT e,,l?E?
. r*-.,r....,- i L r) QNO I r2--n ,,._et Tn ?.irrrt.sw.w G.." of L,r rr--}rJO it- _ .SCD1??+T
HAr Acto?ae Foe p"rt on,r F<os,t 7a 40ur.nu+E 4ow-CM640" c)Lttc Roue .
Evaluator's Signature Date
.This channel evaluation form is intended only to be used as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professlonals
gather the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessmcet of stream

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
:
IT
P
^ .Y4 E'...T .? S'.?[v4 ;
..M ., :r:l`. v'.:n•fi .w. 1. •.: ?.1
r Yl.. ??.. f'L-.:•.;.,
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
stream no flow or saturation - 0• stmn flow - 4
2 Evidence of put human alteration
I Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
extensive alteration - 0• no alteration - 4
3 Riparian Zone Coastal. 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no vegetation - 0. e a vegetation - 4
4 Evidence ofnutrient or chemical Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4

discharges

extensive dischar es - 0• no dischar es - 4 1

v?
5 Groundwater discharge Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no discharge - 0• s rin s sees wetlands etc. - 4
W 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain Coa3tal:.0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
Ri no flood lain - 0• broad?undeveloped flood lain - 11
w 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
full entrenched - 0 regular flood lain access- 4
8 Presence of Adjacent Wetlands Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain, -0-4
no wetlands - 0 lar a ad-acent wetlands- 4
9 Channel Sinuosity Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4

extensive channelirtion - 0. natural meander - 4 D
10 Sediment input Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
extensive de sition- 0• little or no sediment - 4
11 Size $ diversity of channel bed Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
substrate (fine, homogenous.- 0• large, diverse sizes - 4
12 Evidence of channel incision or Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
widening (deeply incised - 0, stable bed dt banks - 4
13 Presence of major bank failures Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0- /
Cy severe erosion --0- no erosion stable banks - 4 l
q 14 Vegetation coverage on banks Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
full exposed banks - 0. 100% coverage - 4
H I S Root depth and density on hanks Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no visible roots - 0. dense roots throughout - 4 '
16 Impact by agriculture or livestock Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
1
roduction substantial impact -0. no evidence - 4) 4
17 Presence ofriffle-pool steps Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed - 4
18 Habitat complexity Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain- 0-4

little or no habitat - 0• frequent, varied habitats - 4 I
p??? 19 Canopy coverage over streambed Coast: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
l
pp no shadin
t
i
-
•
g e
at
on
0
continuous cane - 4 V
20 Substrate embeddedness Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
(deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - 4
21 Presence ofstreaminvertebrates Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous types -4 Q
y 22 Presence of mollusks or crustaceans Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 04 Mountain: 0-4

t9
no dente - 0 common numerous types =4 O
23 Presence ofamphibians Coastal: 0-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4

O
no evidence - 0• common numerous types -4 D
m 24 Presen ce offish Coastal: G-4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
no evidence - 0. common, numerous types =4
25 Evidence of wildlife use Coastal: 0--4 Piedmont: 0-4 Mountain: 0-4
none evidence - 0• abundant evidence - 4 lJ
?'w tq?
FILE COPY
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 20033 1 1 53
County Run-conhe
Quad ASHEVILLE.
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property owner: Horne Properties, Incorporated, Attn: Mr. Michael Patterson 219@20W20
Address: 412 N. Cedar Bluff Road, Suite 205 Knoxville, TN 37923-3609 FEB 2 1 ?p?5
Telephone No: [phone]
D
4D - WATEk QUr:LiTy
Zone: 44 UTM orLAT/LONG: North: 3937803 East: 637037 ttiETU,tJ?S???STOR?fWATERBRANCH
Size and Location of project (water body, road name/number, town, etc.) An approximate 79 acre tract adjacent to the
Swannanoa River off of NC Highway 81, Swannanoa River Road, in Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The parcel includes an unnamed tributary to the Swannanoa River and adjacent wetlands.
Description of Activity: to construct a bridge across the Swannanoa River to provide access into the Riverbend
Marketplace development. Construction of a bridge abutment on the right bank of the river will require impacts to
75 linear feet of channel. In addition, approximately 790 linear feet of intermittent, aquatically unimportant stream
channel and 0.25 acre of adjacent wetlands will be filled in conjunction with site preparation for the development.
Approximately 0.27 acre of wetland (wetland A as depicted on the permit plans) is to be preserved through decd
restrictions or restrictive covenants. A buffer area adjacent to the Swannanoa River is to be dedicated to the City of
Asheville for incorporation into their greenway program.
Applicable Law: -X__ Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344)
(check all that apply) Section 10 (River and Harbors Act of 1899)
Authorization: NW39 Nationwide Permit Number
Your work is authorized by this Regional General (RGP) or Nationwide Permit (NWP) provided it is accomplished in
strict accordance with the attached conditions, those outlined in the attached October 3, 2003 NC Wildlife Resources
Commission letter, and your submitted plans. A copy of the recorded decd restrictions or restrictive covenants,
protecting the remaining 0.27 acre wetland and stream corridor, shall be provided to the Corps of Engineers within 90
days of permit verification. If your activity is subject to Section 404 (if Section 404 block above is checked), before
beginning work you must also receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management, telephone [phone]. For any activity within the twenty coastal counties, before beginning work you
must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, telephone [phone].
Please read and carefully comply with the attached conditions of the RGP or NWP. Any violation of the conditions of
the RGP or the NWP referenced above may subject the pcrmittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or
appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army RGP or NWP verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any
other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local
agencies before beginning work.
If there are any questions regarding this authorization or any of the conditions of the General Permit or Nationwide
Permit, please contact the Corps Regulatory Official specified below.
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-003
33CFR 325 Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
ata sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
.ny other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Ilcadquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 222024302; and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. 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
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable waters of the
United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Untied States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information
is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample
drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the pro d activity. An application that is not completed
E5 7
in full will be returned.
1 .? . ??.
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4.DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
JAN 2 7 2005
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S (fld ?g int${ required)
River Bend LLC '-^
ATTN: Mr. Harley Dunn CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
c/o R. Clement Riddle
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
16 Governor's View Road PO Box 528 224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Asheville, NC Asheville, NC 28802 Hendersonville, NC 28792
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence N/A a. Residence N/A
b. Business [phone] b. Business 828/698-9800
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, R. Clement Riddle, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in
support of this ermit application.
?21 -vim
APPLI A ''S IG A URE DATE
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
River Bend Business Park
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Swannanoa River
N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Buncombe NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
The site is located castt of Interstaee 240, approximately one (1) miles east of Tunnel Road in Asheville. Access to the site is provided by a new dcvelopcmnt bridge
and road along Swannanoa River Road..
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Ilighway 25 turn east onto Swannanoa River Road (NC Route 81) and continue towards the intersection of Interstate 240 and NC Route 81. Turn right into
property entrance, located approximately one-third mile from Interstate 240) Figure 1.
Adjacent Land Owners
Horne Properties - Asheville LLC
412 North Cedar Bluff Rd, Ste. 205
Knoxville, TN 37923
Horne Development River Bend, LLC
412 North Cedar Bluff Rd, Suite 205
Knoxville, TN 37923
Six Oaks LLC
190 B Continuum Drive
Fletcher, NC 28732
Easy Access Property, LTD
C/O Bob Hughes
6409 Westgate Road
Raleigh, NC 27617
Mountain Property Association, Inc.
300 North Winsted Ave.
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
R19@K90W[R0
FEB 2 1 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
?tiFL QZS AIM STORY VATER BW iCH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location ........................................................................................................................ .. 2
2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work ......................................................................................... .. 2
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 3
3.1 Vegetative Communities .......................................................................................................... .. 3
3.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern ....................................................... .. 3
PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT - River Bend Business Park ........................... 5
4.1 Mixed use Development ........................................................................................................... .. 5
4.2 Stormwater Pond ...................................................................................................................... .. 5
4.3 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... .. 5
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 6
5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. .. 6
5.2 Project Justification ................................................................................................................. .. 7
5.3 The Site .................................................................................................................................... .. 9
5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts) ................................. 10
5.5 Alternatives Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 10
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN ......................................................................... 11
6.1 Avoidance ................................................................................................................................. 11
6.2 Minimization ............................................................................................................................ 11
6.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................................. 11
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES ............. 13
7.1 Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines ..................................... 13
7.2 Factual Determination .............................................................................................................. 13
7.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem ......... 13
7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem ............................................ 16
7.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites .............................................................................. 16
7.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics ...................................................................... 18
7.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 19
PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 20
8.1 Conservation ............................................................................................................................. 20
8.2 Economics ................................................................................................................................ 20
8.3 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 20
8.4 General Environmental Concerns ............................................................................................. 20
8.5 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 20
8.6 Historic Properties .................................................................................................................... 21
8.7 Fish and Wildlife Values .......................................................................................................... 21
8.8 Flood Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 21
8.9 Floodplain Values ..................................................................................................................... 21
8.10 Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 21
8.11 Navigation ................................................................................................................................ 21
8.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion .................................................................................................... 21
8.13 Recreation .................................................................................................................................22
8.14 Water Supply and Conservation ............................................................................................... 22
8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management) ............................................................................... 22
8.16 Energy Needs ............................................................................................................................ 23
8.17 Safety ........................................................................................................................................23
Q19 (251.1 IR odLrRo
D
FEB 2 1 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 3. Master Plan Map
Figure 4 Typical Fill X-Section
APPENDICES
Appendix A Threatened and Endangered Species Report
Appendix B North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program letter
FEB R[R@[R0w[g0
2 1 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
W2T"DS AND STORM i ATER ERA1 cH
2.0 BACKGROUND
River Bend Business Park, LLC, the applicant, brought in an experienced commercial
developer, Horne Properties, to help design the master plan for the proposed development
of the property and to purchase and develop Phase I of the venture.
The initial planning efforts focused on the entire site. The natural features of the land
were studied to determine the type of development plan that would best fit the property.
It is important to note, that one of the dominant factors of the intense planning process
was coordination with the City of Asheville in revitalizing a former superfund site into a
significant urban development that has multiple benefits and generally meets the needs
and welfare of the public. The project team including Wolverton & Associates,
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc., Masters Gentry Architects, Horne
Properties, Day Engineering and others spent many days in the field to determine the best
uses for the project site. The proposed urban master plan maximizes the re-development
of the former superfund site.
2.1 Project Location
The River Bend Business Park is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina
and is accessed by traveling west on Swannanoa River Road (NC Highway 81)
from the intersection of Swannanoa River Road and Fairview Road, then turning
south across the Swannanoa River at the new Bleachery Boulevard bridge (Figure
1). The project is located on the left side of Bleachery Boulevard approximately
mile past the bridge. The project elevation is approximately 2,150+ ft. (Figure
3).
2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this project is the urban re-development of a former Superfund
site that will create a high-density mixed use urban community that includes
residential living, retail shopping, and dining opportunities to the area.
FEB 2 1 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
Vi ETLANDS AND STORFMATER BRANCH
condition of most of the site (Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries mill), evidence of past
silvicultural practices on the eastern portion of the site, and a general lack of suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that any protected species exist on the property. A comprehensive
threatened and endangered species survey was prepared August 8, 2003 and is included
as an attachment to this application (Appendix A).
An updated field review of the proposed site was conducted in October 2004. It is the
opinion of C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally protected species are
still not likely to be present within the site. As such, development of the proposed River
Bend Business Park is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or
endangered species.
Although no federally listed threatened and endangered species were identified during
these surveys, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and
endangered species and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible
that endangered species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any
potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with
appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
Q?c??oe?D
FEB 2 1 2005
V,ETL dOS i ST'1'. 1 QUAUry
D '.'Cfi
4
5.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Overview
This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the Applicant to assist the Wilmington
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in evaluating the application for
authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 at The
River Bend Business Park development in Buncombe County, North Carolina. An
analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines requirements for consideration of
alternatives as required by 40C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below. Actions taken to
avoid and minimize wetland impacts are presented in Section 6.0 of this Application.
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge
of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain
"sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the
requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information
needed to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the
Guidelines is commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact (as
determined by the functions of the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed
activity) and the scope/cost of the project." [See ACOE/EPA Memorandum to the
Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p. 2, dated August 23, 1994,
hereinafter the "Memorandum."] As noted in the Memorandum at pages 3-4, the
404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists
which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." [See Memorandum.]
"If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is
not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Register
85343 (December 24, 1980).]
Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).]
Clarification is provided in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be
considered in the determination of practicability. An alternative site is considered
"available" if it is presently owned by the applicant or "could reasonably be obtained,
utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed
activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2).
Our intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope/cost of the proposed project. The tern economic [for which the term "costs" was
substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the
E Fm @`M 0 W R
Q
6 FEB 2 1 ?005
DE14R - WATtk CVAUTv
The proposed redevelopment will contain a variety of uses, generally consistent with
their other successful mixed use "sustainable development" projects in the southeast.
These land uses include single-family homes, commercial, retail, and office space,
and infrastructure such as utilities and 3.5 miles of sidewalks. The proposed land use
provides the future residents with an attractive high-density and aesthetically pleasing
place to live, work, and shop. The proposed plan is the highest and best use of the
former superfund site given its urban location.
The additional 3.5 acres that will be made available comprise an approximate value of
over $500,000 plus financial return on 22,000 additional square feet. This portion of
the project represents a significant economic benefit to the applicant and a substantial
anchor tenant to the overall mixed use community.
When reviewing this application, the USACE is also required to consider the public
interest in this project. In considering the public interest, the USACE must evaluate
the probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may
be expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments."
In balancing these interests, the USACE must consider the public and private need for
the proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations, and
the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project.
The USACE also considers other factors, including:
Conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion,
recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of the
property ownership and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Furthermore, the USACE regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the
district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors over the last three years through
an exhaustive planning process and believes that the proposed project is clearly in the
public interest. In fact, the proposed project master plan has been altered numerous
times to specifically accommodate the City of Asheville planning request to improve
the development for the general public.
The project should be able to benefit the public in terms of conservation, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, fish and wildlife values, and water quality. Most
importantly, while the project will impact 0.27 acres of wetlands, the overall wetland
impact for the project is minimal and is offset by adequate mitigation. The end result
is a contribution to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP_ of
approximately $18,000 for future restoration, preservatio
D
FEB 2 1 2005
8
DENR - WATER QUALITY
?'? c AN S MD STORY V TER BRANCH
C. Site Accessibility
The site is located adjacent to major roads and direct accessibility into all
portions of the site. A development's marketability is directly related to how
accessible it is to its residents/users. Further, if certain portions of the site are
inaccessible, the property loses value and limits the area of development.
5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts)
In preparing the master plan, the applicant considered a variety of constraints, including
impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. The applicant has avoided and minimized impacts
to wetlands to the greatest extent practicable and feasible while still accomplishing the
overall project purpose.
During design of the proposed master plan, the applicant considered development
alternatives, which included no impacts to the 0.27 acre wetland. Prior to the submittal of
this application, the applicant conducted meetings with regulatory agency personal
including the USACE, NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ), and NC Wildlife Resource
Commission on November 30, 2004.
Because the wetland is located in the center of the site, it is already subject to an
increased in stormwater and litter. It is possible that this wetland area will continue to
decline and its important functions and values will become less effective.
5.5 Alternatives Conclusion
This discussion of alternatives, together with other documents submitted by the applicant
in support of its 404 Permit, shows that the project complies with the guidelines and
promotes public interest. As this analysis clearly demonstrates, the applicant's
development is designed to minimize impacts to the extent practicable by providing
stormwater management systems and suitable mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands.
V
FEB #,W@@# @#
DEN
`'rS WDST?, Q AJ E
,CH
10
Our review identified few suitable areas for wetland mitigation. Four potential
sites were identified during map research and reviewed in the field. Site 1 is a 10
acre tract adjacent to Wood Avenue just south of Tunnel Road. It is estimated
that the site has approximately 2-3 acres of wetlands. However, discussion with
representatives of the owners, Ballard family, this property is not for sale. Site 2
is located east of Asheville just north of Warren Wilson Road. The wetlands are
located adjacent to Beetree Creek and owned by the Anvil Corporation. After
further research it was discovered that these wetlands area adjacent to and part of
a wetland/pond system that extends onto the Chemtronics Property (Now owned
by Tandy Corporation). This is a former EPA Superfund Site with a well
documented history of groundwater contamination. After review of the USACE
FINAL Superfund Five Year Review Report, Chemtronics Site, Swannanoa, NC;
EPA ID: NCD095459392, this site was dropped from further consideration due to
potential liability concerns. Site 3 was identified from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service NWI maps as an approximately 6 acre wetland adjacent to the Swannanoa
River near Azalea Road. After a site inspection of the floodplain, CEC
determined that this area is an upland floodplain and not suitable for wetland
mitigation. Site 4 is located in Swannanoa and was identified as an agricultural
field with agricultural ditches apparently draining the lower floodplain property.
However, a site visit confirmed that, the site is now occupied by the Asheville
Christian Academy and is not available for wetland mitigation.
In addition to these sites, drive by evaluations of the entire Swannanoa floodplain
did not identify other suitable options for wetland restoration. It is our opinion
that contributing to the NC EEP will be the most effective means of mitigating
unavoidable impacts from the project.
a9rr:q9MA1
FEB 2 1 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
wUN,tdDS fM STOROXIER IM111
12
7.3.1 Substrate
The modification of the substrate to an aquatic ecosystem can cause
changes in water circulation, depth, drainage patterns, water fluctuations,
water temperature, and benthic organism changes. No impacts to on-site
streams are proposed. Proposed alterations to on-site wetland consist of
filling 0.27 acres and mitigated through contributions to the EEP. The
applicant proposes to impact less than 0.27 acres of wetlands but mitigate
for the total wetland impacts Phase I and II (approximately 0.71 acres).
The designed and engineered surface water management plan will
alleviate potential problems resulting from alteration in drainage or water
level fluctuation patterns. The design of the stormwater management
system is intended to protect the chemical and biotic integrity of the water
quality and quantity aspects of the regional aquatic ecosystem.
7.3.2 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion Control)
The discharge of dredge and fill material can increase the amount of
suspended particulates in the aquatic ecosystem. While such an increase in
the turbidity level can have a negative effect on microorganisms and
invertebrates, it is expected to be controlled and minimized by the project
design. Through the placement of silt screens, hay bales, vegetated filter
strips, or other turbidity barriers, utilizing Best Management Practices will
control and minimize suspended particulates that may exit the area of
disturbance. The proposed project will be constructed and managed in such
a way as to minimize the potential for elevated levels of suspended
particulates.
The State of North Carolina enacted the Sediment and Erosion Control
law as part of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. This law
requires that anyone disturbing more than one acre of land must submit an
erosion control plan and receive approval from the N.C. Division of Land
Quality. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the project area
and other disturbed areas greater than one acre was designed by
Wolverton & Associates. The erosion and sedimentation control plan will
be reviewed and approved by the Buncombe County Soil and Erosion
Control Officer. The purpose of the erosion control plan is to develop
measures that will contain erosion during storm events before it reaches
streams or leaves the site.
Finally, many of the erosion control measures such as sediment traps can
be designed to accommodate the 2-year storm based on the state's
regulations. Fm e? R 0W al D
FEB 2 1 2005
14 DENR - WATER QUALITY
VOL'JdCS 1140 STOF4,1WATE:R BRANCH
7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem
Sub-Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern from
which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of
the ecosystem. These components are T&E species; fish, crustaceans, mollusks,
and other aquatic organisms in the food web; and other wildlife.
7.4.1 Threatened or Endangered Species
Discharge of dredge and fill material may cause the potential loss of
valuable habitat to wildlife and plant species listed as T&E by the USFWS
through the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and its subsequent additions
and amendments (50 C.F.R. 17.11). The project is planned so that there
are no filling impacts to 14.88 acres of wetlands. No impacts to federally
listed species are expected as described in Section 3.2 above.
7.4.2 Fishes, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the
Food Web
Discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web by impacting
animals such as invertebrates that make up the basis of a food chain. The
release of contaminants or an increase in turbidity may have potential
negative effects on certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may
also potentially increase the levels of exotic species.
Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the
U.S./wetlands on the project should reasonably be expected to have
minimal to no effects on wetland and aquatic systems in the vicinity.
7.4.3 Other Wildlife
The discharge of dredge and fill material can have a negative effect on the
breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred
food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species.
A minimal loss of wildlife habitat for wetland-dependent species may
result from construction of the project, the proposed mitigation should
compensate for any minor loss of habitat.
7.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Sub-Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential
impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges;
wetlands; mud flats; vegetated shallows; coral reefs; and riffle and pool
complexes.
Q?c??ad?p
D
FEB 2 1 2005
16 DENR - WATER QUALITY
V,ETL,ANDS AND STORMATER BRANCH
project. The impacted jurisdictional area does not contain riffle and pool
stream complexes.
7.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics
Sub-Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use
of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and
commercial fisheries, water-related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar
preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines. No effects on
human use characteristics can be anticipated from the proposed development of
the project.
7.6.1 Municipal and Private Water Supply
Significant discharges of dredge and fill material should not have a
negative impact on water quality serving as a water supply for
municipalities or private developments. There should be no affect to
municipal; or private drinking water supplies. Potable water is being
supplied to Phase II by the Asheville municipal water supply system.
7.6.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have a negative
effect on water quality. However, the connection to the Swannanoa River
is entirely culverted. There is no recreational or commercial fishery
associated with the proposed impact area. Phase I riparian buffers
(approximately 13 acres) were established to assist in the long-term
protection and viability of the Swannanoa River.
7.6.3 Water-Related Recreation
A discharge of dredge and fill material may have a negative effect on
water-related recreation by impairing or destroying water resources that
support recreational activities. Development of the project is not expected
to have negative impacts on water-related recreation activities as the
privately owned 0.27 acre wetland has not provided recreational uses in
the past.
7.6.4 Aesthetics
The discharge of dredge and fill materials into wetland ecosystems may
adversely impact the aesthetic value of natural aquatic ecosystems. The
project has been planned to eliminate impacts to the on-site wetlands and
primary streams. Payment is being proposed the EEP to restore and
protect wetlands in the French Broad River Basin.
IN 0wig
D
FEB 2 1 2005
ig
ViENJE SRN TQn AVA R aw"CH
8.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contrary to the public
interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed
in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below.
8.1 Conservation
The redevelopment of the former superfund site does include an on-site
conservation of natural resources. The applicant has set aside approximately 13
acres of riparian buffers along the Swannanoa River. In addition, contribution into
the NC EEP will allow appropriate mitigation of wetland resources in the French
Broad River Basin. The EEP mitigation is planned to be a comprehensive
watershed approach that maximizes the protection and enhancement of wetlands
and waters of the US.
8.2 Economics
River Bend Village overall is expected to employ several hundred people, and to
have a significant economic positive impact on the property tax base for Buncombe
County as well as a positive impact on the local retail industry. Municipal
sewer/water extensions are being paid for privately for this project and the roads
within the project site will be privately owned and maintained.
8.3 Aesthetics
The project has been carefully planned by the project developers and reviewed by
the City of Asheville to minimize impacts to the aesthetics of the area. The high-
density nature of the project is consistent with the urban development of the
adjacent land owners.
8.4 General Environmental Concerns
Other than wetland impacts, proposed urban development activities on the project
site would have no significant identifiable impacts upon other environmental
components due to the nearly century long use of this property as heavy industrial.
8.5 Wetlands
Development of the project will impact 0.27 acres of on-site wetlands. Payment
into the NC EEP for impacts to .70 acres (Phase I and Phase II) of wetl 3 W-Ulti\
off-set these impacts. p ' Uv
ula F EB 2 1 2005
DENR. W^TER QUALITY
1ST A140S AND STOW JXTER ERNO
20
waters. Use of devices such as silt screens, staked hay bales, temporary grassing,
wind rowing of vegetation, and other mechanisms to prevent turbidity will be
employed.
8.13 Recreation
Phase I of the redevelopment provides 13.5acres of river front park as a community
greenway and river buffer. Developers have constructed a paved pedestrian
walking path along the river throughout the park, as well as artistic and historic
exhibit features Public access is allowed and encouraged along this corridor which
will eventually connect with other segments of the City of Asheville's River Front
project. This is the first and currently the only such project on the Swannanoa
River.
8.14 Water Supply and Conservation
Potable water will be provided to the project by the municipal water service.
8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
No short term or long term adverse water quality impacts are anticipated. BMP's
will be incorporated during construction. Stream buffers are being provided to
assure long-term stream protection and integrity.
A stormwater management plan will be designed by Day Engineering and
Associates to satisfy the future stormwater management needs of the proposed
development. Although this plan is not finalized, the draft plan includes the use
of several stormwater management techniques that will direct stormwater into
biofilters or wet ponds from the impervious area associated with the development.
Stormwater from the development will be directed to flow through permanent
stormwater management facilities in the approved plan. No direct discharge of
stormwater to streams is designed for the project.
The stormwater management facilities will be designed to meet the guidelines set
forth in the Stormwater Best Management Practices, NCDENR 1999 and is
required for certain areas by the 401 Water Quality Certification. Biofilters are
designed and configured to provide significant removal of suspended solids,
nutrients, and pollutants from incoming stormwater. Design parameter includes
the provision of sufficient surface area to promote settling of potential pollutants.
The stormwater biofilters are designed for a target sediment removal rate at or
above 85%.
The stormwater management plan will be approved by NCDWQ prior to impacts
to streams. Stormwater management is a requirement under the 401 Water
Quality Certification and may require periodic maintenanc?t?cetstorm_ watt?"? `•w/ ?? ?? teer?
plan requirements. o (LR
FEB 2 1 2005
22 OENR - v,,A"rER QUALITY
WETUV IDS ING STORM ATER SUCH
9.0 SUMMARY
The Phase II redevelopment of the Sayles-Bleachery is planned to be accomplished in
phases that will take at least three years to complete. The applicant proposes all
compensatory mitigation prior to or concurrent with remaining redevelopment activities.
- D
F EB 2 1 2005
t"'j tiVArEROUkL
44F. r., 40S'k'k: STORfWA 0 BRANCH
24
sM
.?:FR rw
- - - - - - - - - - - -
,r
13 13
.13 13
?A? CIF ~?i ?. _1 r
Jam`
I
Proposed Wetland Impact
0.27 acres

Interstate 240

.?Q
?? o Q
i
O
RIVER BEND BUSINESS PARK
PHASE II
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C.
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
WETLAND IMPACT MAP
FIGURE 2
? NEW PIPE
PROPOSED FILL
/ EXIST. GROUND
Wetlands TYPICAL SECTION
N.T.S.
#@@@o @FEB D
2 12005
DEh
`}?OSf?'f p ST GiR?? ?RI?1
Cy
Figure 4
Oyster mussel E ioblasma ca sae ormis Endangered
Bunched arrowhead SagiUariafasiculata -
Endangered
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia 'onesii Endan ered
Virginia s irea S iraea vir 'niana Threatened
Rock gnome lichen G mnoderma lineare Endangered
nreateneu due io simiianry or appearance with northern bog turtle
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program database was also reviewed and provided existing data
concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened and endangered species in
Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey by ClearWater
Environmental Consultants staff. During field surveys, site habitats were identified and
compared with recognized habitats for each of the twelve species potentially occurring on
the site. Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Due to the disturbed
condition of most of the site (Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries mill), evidence of past
silvicultural practices on the eastern portion of the site, and a general lack of suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that any protected species exist on the property.
3.0 CONCLUSION
During completion of threatened and endangered species habitat assessments for the
Riverbend Marketplace, no listed species were observed. It is the opinion of C1earWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally and state protected species are not likely to
be present within the site. As such, development of the proposed 79-acre Riverbend
Marketplace is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any threatened or endangered
species.
Although no threatened and endangered species were identified during this survey,
because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and endangered species
and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible that endangered
species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any potential
findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with appropriate
agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
F
EB 2 1 2005
IoFT(q o.N STa l' QUALIT-y
TER UYCH
Y
eos stem
ai else
PROGRAM
Clement Riddle
Clear Water Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
November 17, 2004
Subject: Project: Riverbend Marketplace
County: Buncombe
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for riparian wetland impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that the decision
by the NCEEP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be approved by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of
the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP for impacts associated with this project is
appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. 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
forward copies of the 404 Permit/401 Certification to Ecosystem Enhancement Program in order for an invoice to be
generated.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated November 15, 2004, the wetlands restoration that is necessary
to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The maximum
amount of mitigation that the NCEEP will accent for this oroiect is also indicated in this tahlP_
Stream
linear feet Riparian Wetlands
acres Riparian Buffer
(ft2
Impacts 0.70
Mitigation Maximum 1.40
The riparian wetlands mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Section 404
Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 06010105 of the French Broad Fear River Basin.
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of Transportation
signed July 22, 2003.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
James B. Stanfill
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit Strategic Plannin Vg,D
F ?J
David Baker, USACOE-Asheville ?@
Kevin Barnett, DWQ Regional Office-Asheville EB D
File 2 12
005 A TA
R-eftortGfg... E ... Pf ot?.G?l,GL9 atr ftatP? It`??s?rosja ?ou,NCDENR
ATER &RA?,
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 / 919-733-5208 / wwVvReep.net
?OF W ATFRQ Michael F. Easley, Governor
?0 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
7 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
?,._..
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
!^" ~y Division of Water Quality
March 2, 2005
DWQ Project # 05-0263
Buncombe County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
River Bend, LLC
Attn: Mr. Harley Dunn
Post Office Box 528
Asheville, NC 28802
Subject Property: River Bend Business Park, Phase H
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Dunn:
On February 10, 2005, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application for an Individual
401 Water Quality Certification to impact 0.27 acres of wetlands to construct the proposed business park
expansion. The DWQ has determined that your application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate
information as discussed below. The DWQ will require additional information in order to process your
application to impact protected wetlands and/or streams on the subject property. Therefore, unless we
receive the additional information requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your
application as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we
receive this additional information. Please provide the following information so that we may continue to
review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
1. Plan Details
a. Please specify the percent of project imperviousness area based on the estimated built-out
conditions. If the impervious area is to exceed 30%, please provide plans demonstrating
where the stormwater management practices are to be located.
b. Please address whether there are any jurisdictional waters present in the draw along the
northeast property line.
2. Public Notice
Since this project will require an Individual 404 Permit, please note that your application
cannot be considered formally received until the Public Notice to be published by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is received by this Office.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: http?//h2o.enr.sta!e.nc.us/ncwetiands
No One
NthCarolina
?113alurall?
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
River Bend, LLC
Page 2 of 2
March 2, 2005
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in writing
and Kevin Barnett of the DWQ Asheville Regional Office. If we do not hear from you within three
weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. John Dorney at 919-733-1786
if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
CBK/bs
cc: Kevin Barnett, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Clement Riddle, Clearwater Environmental, 224 S. Grove St., Suite F, Hendersonville, NC 28792
Filcname: 05-0263 River Bend Business Park (Buncombe) On Hold
c?-ojtp 3
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
March 14, 2005
Ms. Rebekah Newton
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
RF-71 @ S
Lq =OW1 9
MAC 1 7 2005
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1650
DENR - WATER QUALITY
V W W P11D STWAVATER bfi Ui
SUBJECT: Mr. Harley Dunn, River Bend LLC Individual 404 Permit Application
River Bend Business Park
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Action ID 200531109
Dear Ms. Newton and Ms. Karoly:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc, on behalf of Mr. Harley Dunn of River Bend LLC,
requested a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(Commission) for a 404 Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We reviewed the
public notice for the proposed wetland fill. We also visited the project site on November 30, 2004
with Mr. Dunn, Mr. Clement Riddle of ClearWater Environmental, and various regulatory personnel.
Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
The applicant proposes filling a 0.27 acre wetland to develop Phase II of the River Bend Business
Park on part of a 90 acre tract in Asheville, North Carolina. A Nationwide 39 Permit was issued in
2003 for Phase I impacts on the tract. Approximately 0.07 acre of fill was requested in the wetland
that is now being considered for complete filling under the individual permit application for Phase II.
Other permitted impacts for Phase I included culverting 790 feet of intermittent stream channels and
filling 75 feet along the Swannanoa River and 0.18 acre of other wetlands.
The subject wetland is now hydrologically connected to the Swannanoa River by the previously
permitted culverts. This wetland was not completely filled with Phase I in order to minimize impacts
to waters. A deed notification or similar document was recorded with the explicit intent of avoiding
future wetland impacts on the tract. No mitigation was proposed for the Phase I wetland impacts. If
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Dunn, River Bend Business Park Page 2 March 14, 2005
Buncombe County
the fill is permitted for Phase II as requested, it would result in the loss of all wetlands that once
occurred on the tract.
Despite its degraded condition, the wetland still provides important functions in the region and should
continue to do so if erosion control on the development is improved. During the site visit we directly
observed or noted use of the wetland by raccoon, amphibians, and birds. In addition, it has a
stormwater storage function as evident by water stains on vegetation around its perimeter. As clearly
demonstrated during the major flood events last fall, run-off storage is a wetland function that should
be a conservation priority in the Swannanoa River Watershed. We reiterate our comments made on
the Nationwide Permit application that effective stormwater management is imperative on the tract
because of the anticipated, and now partly existing, high density development.
We question the justification and rationale for filling the wetland because of uncertainty with the final
site plan. We understand from a discussion with Mr. Riddle that the final location for some
stormwater facilities has not been determined. As such, this uncertainty has bearing on justification
for the wetland impact if adjustments to the site plan, which currently dictate the purported need for
the fill, will occur. And, again, we believe that conserving the wetland, possibly to augment the
stormwater management needs on this dense development, should not be discounted at this time.
There is an apparent conflict of the current proposal (Phase II) with avoidance and minimization
efforts that were used to permit Phase I of the project. Mitigation agreed upon for Phase I would not
be honored with the Phase II proposal. The Commission believes that commitments to preserve
remaining wetlands or streams are not temporary obligations and should be reflected within any
future project phases. The Commission is uncertain if the Phase I wetland preservation plans are
binding in perpetuity. We do not believe disregarding earlier avoidance and minimization efforts on a
contiguous tract with multiple development phases is consistent either in letter or spirit with Clean
Water Act guidelines.
In summary, we cannot concur with the project as proposed. We would anticipate a more favorable
opinion of some additional Phase II wetland impacts if they involved minor fill necessary to
incorporate the wetland into a stormwater management BMP within the development and/or
greenspace area for residents. The latter may add value to the development and off-set economic
practicability constraints. We also believe that the 1:1 ratio for compensatory mitigation that was
offered is inadequate to compensate for cumulative wetland and stream impacts in the site,
particularly if the subject request is granted.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any questions
regarding these comments, please contact David McHenry at [phone] extension 24.
Sincerely,
?a ?t I
Fred Harris
Deputy Dgr
cc: vin Barnett, Division of Water Quality, Asheville
Mr. Brian Cole, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
A 7r=
NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
D I V I S I O N OF I N L A N D F I S H E R I E S
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: PROM:
Cyndi Karoly Shannon Deaton
COMPANY: D.1Te.
Di-65ion ofWattz Quality/401AVcdand3 Unit AARCH 15,22005
FPS, NUMBER.- TOTAL. NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COYER:
7 ?3 - 4, oo 9.3 3
PRONE, NUMBER SENDER'S REFGRnrCCE L:UhfBEk ^
919-715-7643 fax
RE: YOUR REFCRENCb NUMSER:
919-733-3633
? URGF,NT ? FOR REVIMV ? PLEASE COniI`fi Nl' X PLEA5E REPLY ? PLEME RECYCLE
NOTE5/C0rAMENTS:
NAR-15-2005 TUE 03:03 TEL:[phone] NAIIE:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 1
05-D 2-tp3
North. Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
March 14, 2005
hls. Rebekah Newton
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1650
SUBJECT- Mr. Harley Dunn, River Bend LLC Individual 404 Permit Application
River Bend Business Park
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Action ID 200531109
Dear Ms. Newton quid Ms. Karoly:
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc, on behalf of Mr. Harley Dunn of River Bend LLC,
requested a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(Commission) for a 404 Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We reviewed the
public notice for the proposed wetland fill. We also visited the project site on November 30, 2004
with Mr. Dunn, Mr. Clement Riddle of C1earWater Environmental, and various regulatory personnel.
Our continents are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
The applicant proposes filling a 0.27 acre wetland to develop Phase 11 of the River Bend Business
Park on part of a 90 acre tract in Asheville, North Carolina. A Nationwide 39 Permit was issued in
2003 for Phase I impacts on, the tract. Approximately 0.07 acre of fill was requested in the wetland
that is now being considered for complete filling under the individual permit application for Phase II.
Other permitted impacts for Phase I included culverting 790 feet of intermittent stream channels and
filling 75 feet along the Swannanoa River and 0.18 acre of other wetlands.
The subject wetland is now hydrologically connected to the Swannanoa River by the previously
permitted culverts. This wetland was not completely filled with Phase I in order to minimize impacts
to waters. A deed notification or similar document was recorded with the explicit intent of avoiding
future wetland impacts on the tract. No mitigation was proposed for the Phase I wetland impacts. If
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
NAR-15-2005 TUE 08:09 TEL:[phone] NANE:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 2
From: "Clement Riddle"
Date: Fri, I I Mar 2005 09:28:07 -0500
di Karoly"' <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
To: . 111Cyr
additional information on the project. We are arch
Cyndi,
ated We are in receipt DWana will be submitting it as q 5 re uicklq as uesting possible.
preparing this information
Please keep the project on hold until this information is sent to you.
Thank You.
Clement Riddle
C1earWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
828-698-9003 FAX
criddleScwenv.com
www.cwenv.com
be legally privileged. It is intended solely f for the disclosure,
arties is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, any be unlawful.
The information in this email is confidential and may prohibited and may
addressee(s). Disclosure to other p
or any action taken or omitted to
copying, distribution
3/11/2005 10:00 AM
&i,c purported need for
1 of 1 Lam conserving the wetland, possibly to augment the
,,.,,t,L.Waier management needs on this dense development, should not be discounted at this time.
There is an apparent conflict of the current proposal (Phase 11) with avoidance and rninitnization
efforts that were used to permit Phase I of the project. Mitigation agreed upon for Phase I would not
be honored with the Phase II proposal. The Commission believes that commitments to preserve
retraining wetlands or streams are not temporary obligations and should be reflected within any
future project phases. The Commission is uncertain if the Phase I wetland preservation plans are
binding in perpetuity. We do not believe disregarding earlier avoidance and minimization efforts on a
contiguous tract with multiple development phases is consistent either in letter or spirit with Clean
Water Act guidelines.
In summary, we cannot concur with the project as proposed. We would anticipate a more favorable
opinion of some additional Phase 11 wetland impacts if they involved minor Fill necessary to
incorporate the wetland into a stormwater management BMP within the development and/or
greenspace area for residents. The latter may add value to the development and off-set economic
practicability constraints. We also believe that the 1:1 ratio for compensatory mitigation that was
offered is inadequate to compensate for cumulative wetland and stream impacts in the site,
particularly if the subject request is granted.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any questions
regarding these comments, please contact David McHenry at [phone] extension 24.
Sincerely,
?Ls ?d'"'V1/I
Fred Harris
Deputy Davin cc: Barnett, Division of Water Quality, Asheville
Mr. Brian Cole, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
HAR-15-2005 TUE 03:09 TEL:919733G893 HAME:DWQ-WETLAr1DS P. 3
River Bend 05-0263
Subject: River Bend 05-0263
From: "Clement Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:28:07 -0500
To: "'Cyndi Karoly"' <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
We are in receipt DWQ's letter dated March 2, 2005 requesting additional information on the project. We are
preparing this information and will be submitting it as quickly as possible.
Please keep the project on hold until this information is sent to you.
Thank you.
Clement Riddle
ClearWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
828-698-9003 FAX
criddle((Dcwenv.com
www.cwenv.com
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee(s). Disclosure to other parties is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
1 of 1 3/11/2005 10:00 AM
Dunn, River Bend Business Park Page 2 March 14, 2005
Buncombe County
the fill is permitted for Phase II as requested, it would result in the loss of all wetlands that once
occurred on the tract.
Despite its degraded condition, the wetland still provides important functions in the region and should
continue to do so if erosion control on the development is improved. During the site visit we directly
observed or noted use of the wetland by raccoon, amphibians, and birds. In addition, it has a
stonnwater storage function as evident by water stains on vegetation around its perimeter. As clearly
demonstrated during the major flood events last fall, run-off storage is a wetland function that should
be a conservation priority in the Swannanoa River Watershed. We reiterate our comments made on
the Nationwide Permit application that effective stormwater management is imperative on the tract
because of the anticipated, and now partly existing, high density development.
We question the justification and rationale for filling the wetland because of uncertainty with the final
site plan. We understand from a discussion with Mr. Riddle that the final location for some
stonnwater facilities has not been determined. As such, this uncertainty has bearing on justification
for the wetland impact if adjustments to the site plan, which currently dictate the purported need for
the fill, will occur. And, again, we believe that conserving the wetland, possibly to augment the
stormwater management needs on this dense development, should not be discounted at this time.
There is an apparent conflict of the current proposal (Phase 11) with avoidance and minimization
efforts that were used to permit Phase I of the project. Mitigation agreed upon for Phase I would not
be honored with the Phase II proposal. The Commission believes that commitments to preserve
remaining wetlands or streams are not temporary obligations and should be reflected within any
future project phases. The Commission is uncertain if the Phase I wetland preservation plans are
binding in perpetuity. We do not believe disregarding earlier avoidance and minimization efforts on a
contiguous tract with multiple development phases is consistent either in letter or spirit with Clean
Water Act guidelines.
In summary, we cannot concur with the project as proposed. We would anticipate a more favorable
opinion of some additional Phase II wetland impacts if they involved minor fill necessary to
incorporate the wetlattd into a stormwater management BMP within the development and/or
greenspace area for residents. The latter may add value to the development and off-set economic
practicability constraints. We also believe that the 1:1 ratio for compensatory mitigation that was
offered is inadequate to compensate for cumulative wetland and stream impacts in the site,
particularly if the subject request is granted.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any questions
regrading these comments, please contact David McHenry at [phone] extension 24.
Sincerely,
:? ;,?'? I
Fred Harris
Deputy DLqevin etor
cc: Barnett, Division of Water Quality, Asheville
Mr. Brian Cole, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
HAR-15-2005 TUE 03:09 TEL:[phone] HAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 3
CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
January 21, 2005
Mr. Scott McLendon
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

- i . tI ri"''1
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Individual Permit Application
River Bend Business Park
Buncombe County, NC
Dear Scott and Cyndi:
FR QUALITY
5TCORYATER E,RAta
?Q 2 0
D
f F -? 1 0 "1005
DEAR - WXrER QUALITY
','OW-M RM STMIAVATER EMJCH
Enclosed for your review is an Individual Permit application for stream and wetland impacts
associated with the construction of River Bend Business Park, Phase II, a mixed use urban
redevelopment project in Asheville, (Buncombe County) North Carolina. The following
information is included with the application as supporting documents:
1) 8.5 X 11" plan drawings including stream impacts
2) List of Adjacent Land Owners
3) Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment dated August 2003
4) DWQ Permit Application Fee
Please do not hesitate to call me at [phone] to discuss this application or if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
i. 9AA9
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
enclosures
cc: Mr. Harley Dunn, River Bend LLC.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT ONIB APPROVAL NO.0710-003
(33CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
ata sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
.irv other asuect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
4 ! a. Residence N/A a. Residence N/A

Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite IZU4, Arlington, VA LLLVL-4.3UL; anu to me U1ucc Ui rv,aua6-1 u, .,,,u
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. 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
Au thority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing Ms
R
R

urpose o ing it into
a
afo
United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Untied States, and the transportation of dred r the p
ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application fora permit. Dis ur : isclosure of rc tcd information
i
i
d
1 2005 q
b
t
e
ssue
.
is voluntary. if information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a perm
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity rIXA PIC t i a poication (see sample
ot completed
1
1
+ hI lM
jurisdiction over the location of the prop%JJ
ineer havin
t
i
t E
h
Di
d b
b
i
d
i
Ln
W
M1
M
ng
g
r
c
to t
e
s
ons) an
e su
m
tte
drawings and instruct
in full will be returned.

ITEMS 1 TIIRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4.DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
(ITEIIIS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME & TITLE (an agent is not required)
River Bend LLC
ATTN: Mr.11arley Dunn CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
c/o R. Clement Riddle
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
16 Governor's View Road PO Box 528 224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Asheville, NC Asheville, NC 28802 Hendersonville, NC 28792
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE

b. Business [phone] b. Business 828/698-9800
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, R. Clement Riddle, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to famish, upon request, supplemental information in
support of this ermit application.
'2----- A oI/ -off
APPLI A 'S IG A RE DATE
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
River Bend Business Park
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Swannanoa River
N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Buncombe NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
The site is located eastt of interstace 240, approximately one (1) miles east of Tunnel Road in Asheville. Access to the site is provided by a new devclopemnt bridge
and road along Swannnnoa River Road..
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Highway 25 turn east onto Swannanoa River Road (NC Route 81) and continue towards the intersection of Interstate 240 and NC Route 81. Turn right into
property entrance, located approximately one-third mile from Interstate 240) Figure 1.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all
See attached description.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
To build a high density mixed use urban community in the mountains of western North Carolina. This community will have retail, commercial, office, and
residential uses. See attached description.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DR]
20. Reason(s)for Discharge
Construction of Phase 11 of the River Bend Business Park.
21. Type(s)of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic
Clean fill material approximately 1,300 cubic yards.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Mlled (sc
0.27 acres of fill in wetlands for construction of building and parking.
See attached description.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work
No ® IF YES,
THE
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property
a supplemental list).
See attached.
Lessees, Etc., Whose
more than can be entered here, please
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION # DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
USACE Jurisdictional Verification July 11, 2003
USACE Nationwide Permit 39 October 15, 2003
NCDWQ 401 Certification September 29, 2003
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plan permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. 1 certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the autho ' to undertake the wor described herein or am acting as the duly
aut rued agent of the applicant.
oS-
T
SIG URE APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE 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 entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
J
•
•
Horne Properties - Asheville LLC
412 North Cedar Bluff Rd, Ste. 205
Knoxville, TN 37923
Easy Access Property, LTD
C/O Bob Hughes
6409 Westgate Road
Raleigh, NC 27617
Adjacent Land Owners
Horne Development River Bend, LLC
412 North Cedar Bluff Rd, Suite 205
Knoxville, TN 37923
Mountain Property Association, Inc.
300 North Winsted Ave.
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
Six Oaks LLC
190 B Continuum Drive
Fletcher, NC 28732
D
0
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SECTION 404 PERMIT

NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 CERTIFICATION
January 2005
Applicant:
River Bend Business Park, LLC
Contact: Harley Dunn
PO Box 528
Asheville, NC 28802
828-277-6000
Prepared By:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite #F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
828-698-9800
•
M TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
2.0 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work .......................................................................................... . 2
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................3
3.1 Vegetative Communities ............................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern ......................................................... 3
4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT - River Bend Business Park ........................... 5
4.1 Mixed use Development ............................................................................................................. 5
4.2 Stormwater Pond ........................................................................................................................ 5
4.3 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 6
5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Project Justification .................................................................................................................. . 7
5.3 The Site .................................................................................................................................... .. 9
5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts) ................................. 10
5.5 Alternatives Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 10
6.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN ......................................................................... 11
6.1 Avoidance ................................................................................................................................. 11
6.2 Minimization ............................................................................................................................ 11
6.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................................. 11
7.0
7.1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES .............
Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines ..................................... 13
13
7.2 Factual Determination .............................................................................................................. 13
7.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem ......... 13
7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem ............................................ 16
7.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites .............................................................................. 16
7.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics ...................................................................... 18
7.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 19
8.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 20
8.1 Conservation ............................................................................................................................. 20
8.2 Economics ................................................................................................................................ 20
8.3 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 20
8.4 General Environmental Concerns ............................................................................................. 20
8.5 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 20
8.6 Historic Properties .................................................................................................................... 21
8.7 Fish and Wildlife Values .......................................................................................................... 21
8.8 Flood Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 21
8.9 Floodplain Values ..................................................................................................................... 21
8.10 Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 21
8.11 Navigation ................................................................................................................................ 21
8.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion .................................................................................................... 21
8.13 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 22
8.14 Water Supply and Conservation ............................................................................................... 22
8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management) ............................................................................... 22
8.16
8
17 Energy Needs
Safet 23
23

.
y .
............................................................................................................................

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 3. Master Plan Map
Figure 4 Typical Fill X-Section
APPENDICES
Appendix A Threatened and Endangered Species Report
Appendix B North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program letter
0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
River Bend Business Park, LLC, (the applicant),'proposes to develop Phase II of a master
planned mixed use community on a portion of the 90-acre tract known as River Bend
Business Park (formerly the Sayles-Bleachery) in Buncombe County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). River Bend Business Park, LLC is an Asheville based real estate development
firm. Phase II, to be known as River Bend Village, will utilize approximately 18.5 acres
of that property. The site is accessed from the east off of Swannanoa River Road and/or
River Ridge Drive (Figure 2).
Phase I was recently developed by Horne Properties, a Knoxville, Tennessee based
development firm. During Phase I of the project Home Properties obtained a Section 404
Permit (October 15, 2003) and 401 Water Quality Certification (September 29, 2003) to
impact 0.41 acres of jurisdictional area; specifically, 0.25 acres of wetlands and 790 linear
feet of intermittent and aquatically unimportant stream.
River Bend envisions a Phase II development project that combines mixed use high density
development for approximately 176 apartment condominiums, 84 individual town houses,
and 96,000 square feet of commercial (office and retail) space. This plan has been
approved by the City of Asheville. Phase II of the development is the completion of the
proposed master plan which is the re-development of a former EPA listed Superfund site,
the Sayles Bleachery. The Phase II project boundary contains a 0.27 acre jurisdictional
wetland that drains towards the Swannanoa River.
The applicant has owned the land since 1990 and has expended considerable resources in
design of a comprehensive master plan for the development. The master plan is supported
by a thorough site selection process, followed by extensive planning, engineering analysis
and survey of the physical and biotic components of the site. The physical and biotic
surveys included recent aerial photography, 2 foot topographic surveys, complete Section
404 jurisdictional surveys, threatened and endangered (T&E) species surveys of the entire
site. Typical of master planned developments, the proposed project is being executed in
several phases.
•
2.0 BACKGROUND
River Bend Business Park, LLC, the applicant, brought in an experienced commercial
developer, Horne Properties, to help design the master plan for the proposed development
of the property and to purchase and develop Phase I of the venture.
The initial planning efforts focused on the entire site. The natural features of the land
were studied to determine the type of development plan that would best fit the property.
It is important to note, that one of the dominant factors of the intense planning process
was coordination with the City of Asheville in revitalizing a former superfund site into a
significant urban development that has multiple benefits and generally meets the needs
and welfare of the public. The project team including Wolverton & Associates,
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc., Masters Gentry Architects, Horne
Properties, Day Engineering and others spent many days in the field to determine the best
uses for the project site. The proposed urban master plan maximizes the re-development
of the former superfund site.
2.1 Project Location
The River Bend Business Park is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina
and is accessed by traveling west on Swannanoa River Road (NC Highway 81)
from the intersection of Swannanoa River Road and Fairview Road, then turning
south across the Swannanoa River at the new Bleachery Boulevard bridge (Figure
1). The project is located on the left side of Bleachery Boulevard approximately
%z mile past the bridge. The project elevation is approximately 2,150+ ft. (Figure
3).
2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this project is the urban re-development of a former Superfund
site that will create a high-density mixed use urban community that includes
residential living, retail shopping, and dining opportunities to the area.
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina and consists of cleared
land, nearly all of which was altered in some manner by the former ownership of the
Sayles-Bleachery. Elevations range from approximately 2,200 feet MSL to 2,009 feet
MSL. The site is bordered by the Swannanoa River to the north. The property to the
south is currently developed as a shopping center (River Ridge Shopping Center). The
site is bordered to the west by Interstate 240.
The site contains one jurisdictional area, a 0.27-acre wetland. This wetland drains
towards the Swannanoa River through a culvert, which was previously permitted by
Horne Properties in Phase I of the development. The Swannanoa River is classified as C
Waters by the North Carolina Department of Water Quality. No named or unnamed
streams are located on the property. Most of the site has been cleared and graded. The
site contains one non-graded habitat type. This habitat types is a forested wetland
(Section 3.1)
3.1 Vegetative Communities
During our site visits, one habitat type was identified on the property: forested wetlands.
The following is a description of this habitat type identified on the referenced site and its
. likelihood to harbor or support listed species. A soils discussion is also provided.
3.1.1 Forested Wetland
This freshwater wetland is a seepage and stormwater influenced habitat. There is
no dominant overstory within the wetland. The dominant mid-story scrub-shrub
stratum consists of black willow (Salix nigra), and silver maple with an
herbaceous layer of soft rush (Juncus effuses). The wetland areas were delineated
by C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. in June 2003. The wetland
delineation was verified in the field by Mr. David Baker on July 9, 2003.
Given the historical and recent disturbance to this small isolated wetland, we
cannot classify this area as a high quality wetland. However, it is currently
proving stormwater and ground water recharge functions and values.
3.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
were contacted regarding the known or potential occurrences of federally listed
threatened or endangered species or habitat types found on the River Bend Business Park
project area. The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey by ClearWater
Environmental Consultants staff. During field surveys, site habitats were identified and
compared with recognized habitats for each of the twelve species potentially occurring on
the site. Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Due to the disturbed
• condition of most of the site (Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries mill), evidence of past
silvicultural practices on the eastern portion of the site, and a general lack of suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that any protected species exist on the property. A comprehensive
threatened and endangered species survey was prepared August 8, 2003 and is included
as an attachment to this application (Appendix A).
An updated field review of the proposed site was conducted in October 2004. It is the
opinion of C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally protected species are
still not likely to be present within the site. As such, development of the proposed River
Bend Business Park is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or
endangered species.
Although no federally listed threatened and endangered species were identified during
these surveys, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and
endangered species and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible
that endangered species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any
potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with
appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
is
•
4
0 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT - River Bend Business Park
The 18.5-acre Phase II tract contains 0.27 acres of jurisdictional Wetlands. The applicant
proposes to permanently impact 0.27-acres of the above-described wetland of the
U.S./wetlands to achieve the previously stated project purpose (Figure 2). Specifically,
the applicant proposes to impact 0.27-acres of permanent fill for mixed use urban
redevelopment. Nearly all of the impacts are associated with building development. The
residential lots, utilities, roads, and stormwater management facilities do not propose any
impacts to jurisdictional systems.
Mitigation is being proposed off-site by paying into the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (acceptance letter attached Appendix B). This mitigation will
offset the 0.27 acres of wetlands associated with Phase II of River Bend as well as 0.41
acres of Phase I (previously permitted).
4.1 Mixed use Development
To accomplish the project purpose, the applicant is proposing 96,000 square feet
of commercial development, 260 residential units, parking, and 3.5 miles of
sidewalks. Specifically, the area added to the development by means of this
permit application includes approximately 3.5 acres. The planned square footage
on this site exceeds 22,000 square feet. Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of
material will be used to fill this portion of the site and bring it to a grade nearly
similar to the adjacent development pad.
4.2 Stormwater Pond
One pond is proposed to provide stormwater management as required by the NC
Division of Water Quality. This pond is located in the northern portion of the site
and has been previously approved by the NC Division of Water Quality (letter
dated February 17, 2004). No jurisdictional impacts are proposed for the
stormwater pond. See Section 8.15 for more information on stormwater
requirements. Any modifications to the approved stormwater plan will be
submitted to DWQ for their review and approval prior to impacts to the wetlands.
4.3 Utilities
There are no proposed permanent or temporary impacts to streams or wetlands
onsite resulting from the installation of utilities. It is the intent of the applicant to
bring electricity to the site via overhead lines or located underground and within
the proposed road right of ways. Drinking water will be provided to each
building site via municipal water supply system. The site will utilize the
Asheville municipal waster water treatment facility. Access to the sewer line
system is available on the north and south sides of the project site.
0 5.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Overview
This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the Applicant to assist the Wilmington
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in evaluating the application for
authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 at The
River Bend Business Park development in Buncombe County, North Carolina. An
analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines requirements for consideration of
alternatives as required by 40C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below. Actions taken to
avoid and minimize wetland impacts are presented in Section 6.0 of this Application.
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge
of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain
"sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the
requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information
needed to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the
Guidelines is commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact (as
determined by the functions of the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed
activity) and the scope/cost of the project." [See ACOE/EPA Memorandum to the
Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p. 2, dated August 23, 1994,
hereinafter the "Memorandum."] As noted in the Memorandum at pages 3-4, the
404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists
which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." [See Memorandum.]
"If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is
not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Register
85343 (December 24, 1980).]
Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).]
Clarification is provided in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be
considered in the determination of practicability. An alternative site is considered
"available" if it is presently owned by the applicant or "could reasonably be obtained,
utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed
activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2).
Our intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope/cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs" was
substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the
• applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry
which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines.
The EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an
explicit, but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic
sites are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are environmentally preferable."
Of course, the general requirements that impacts to the aquatic system not be
acceptable also applies. This presumption "...contains sufficient flexibility to reflect
circumstances of unusual cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December 24, 1980). It is
clear from these stipulations that a preferable alternative may allow filling in certain
wetland areas and subsequent mitigation and/or management of other areas.
5.2 Project Justification
Master Planning and permitting large/long term development projects depend highly
upon having flexibility to implement sound land planning and engineering design
principles which are often conceptual at the time of permitting, but which must
include available land for development to economically justify the project, reasonable
site access, construction of utilities and stormwater systems, and appropriate location
of various land use amenities.
The applicant has expended significant resources to conduct intensive surveys and
assessments, including land survey, wetland delineation and survey, threatened and
endangered species survey, intensive land planning and market analysis. The
information gathered from these tasks has been considered in preparation of the
master plan submitted with this permit application. Market analysis conducted by
the applicant confirms the aptness of the project site for the intended purpose of re-
development of a former superfund site. However, for the project to be economically
viable, enough real estate must be made available for amenities to cover development
costs and provide a reasonable profit. Since the land area is finite, development costs,
particularly construction costs, must be limited for the project to be successful.
It is important to note that this site is uniquely well situated for the development of a
high-density, mixed use urban development. The site is located adjacent to interstate
240, less than one-half mile from Interstate 40 and is approximately 1 mile from the
center of Asheville retail center, Tunnel Road. The proximity to Tunnel Road is the
premium retail location in Asheville and provides the best potential for an
economically successful project. It is for these reasons that the applicant has been
trying to begin this re-development project for the last 10 years. No other site of this
size affords the same opportunity for retail-commercial success for the applicant and
improved tax base for the City and, at the same time, benefit the community by
removing a very serious problem, the abandoned and former Superfund site, the
Sayles-Bleachery. At the time of purchase, the proposed impacts for Phase I and
Phase II were within the framework of a Nationwide Permit 26 for minor impacts to
• jurisdictional areas.

The proposed redevelopment will contain a variety of uses, generally consistent with
their other successful mixed use "sustainable development" projects in the southeast.
These land uses include single-family homes, commercial, retail, and office space,
and infrastructure such as utilities and 3.5 miles of sidewalks. The proposed land use
provides the future residents with an attractive high-density and aesthetically pleasing
place to live, work, and shop. The proposed plan is the highest and best use of the
former superfund site given its urban location.
The additional 3.5 acres that will be made available comprise an approximate value of
over $500,000 plus financial return on 22,000 additional square feet. This portion of
the project represents a significant economic benefit to the applicant and a substantial
anchor tenant to the overall mixed use community.
When reviewing this application, the USACE is also required to consider the public
interest in this project. In considering the public interest, the USACE must evaluate
the probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may
be expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments."
In balancing these interests, the USACE must consider the public and private need for
the proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations, and
the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project.
The USACE also considers other factors, including:
Conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion,
recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of the
property ownership and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Furthermore, the USACE regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the
district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors over the last three years through
an exhaustive planning process and believes that the proposed project is clearly in the
public interest. In fact, the proposed project master plan has been altered numerous
times to specifically accommodate the City of Asheville planning request to improve
the development for the general public.
The project should be able to benefit the public in terms of conservation, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, fish and wildlife values, and water quality. Most
importantly, while the project will impact 0.27 acres of wetlands, the overall wetland
impact for the project is minimal and is offset by adequate mitigation. The end result
o is a contribution to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP_ of
approximately $18,000 for future restoration, preservation of wetlands in the
8
Asheville area. This amount should compensate for the total loss of wetlands (Phase
I and Phase II of the project) which is 0.71 acres.
It is our understanding that EEP will acquire wetlands that will be subject to
conservation easements to ensure permanent preservation. Because these streams and
wetlands perform valuable water quality functions, the preservation of these
important areas will contribute in perpetuity to wetlands, stream, fish, and wildlife
protection and improved water quality.
As with any large development, water quality protection and adequate stormwater
management are primary concerns. The applicant will respond to these concerns by
developing a stormwater management plan that may include grassed/infiltration
swales, biofilters, and stormwater ponds.
Additionally, the applicant has already set aside approximately 13 acres of river front
property along the Swannanoa River. The protection of the Swannanoa River buffer
further demonstrates the applicant's willingness to meet the needs of the public
interest.
5.3 The Site
Phase II of River Bend Business Park is comprised of approximately 18.5 acres, part
• of a 90 acre tract of land that was purchased by River Bend in 1990. This site, the
former Sayles-Bleachery plant, was classified as a Superfund Site by the EPA. River
Bend has spent over a decade working towards cleanup and redevelopment of the site.
The re-development of this site will provide an outstanding mixed-use center close to
downtown Asheville.
A. Property is adequately served by community infrastructure.
The 90-acre parcel is served by Duke Power for electricity and BellSouth
provides telephone service to the site. Potable water and sewer services
currently are available to the site.
B. Close to Urban Center.
The applicant's site is ideally located for community development. The
project is located adjacent to Interstate 240 and the heart of the City of
Asheville Urban retail Center (Tunnel Road).
Of the $3.43 billion in retail sales recorded in Buncombe County during FY
2002-03, $2.51 billion or 73 percent of those sales occurred in the City of
Asheville. Among the ten largest cities in North Carolina, Asheville had the
highest level of retail sales per resident in FY 2002-03. This data reflects
Asheville's position as the regional economic center for Western North
Carolina.
9
•
C. Site Accessibility
The site is located adjacent to major roads and direct accessibility into all
portions of the site. A development's marketability is directly related to how
accessible it is to its residents/users. Further, if certain portions of the site are
inaccessible, the property loses value and limits the area of development.
5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts)
In preparing the master plan, the applicant considered a variety of constraints, including
impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. The applicant has avoided and minimized impacts
to wetlands to the greatest extent practicable and feasible while still accomplishing the
overall project purpose.
During design of the proposed master plan, the applicant considered development
alternatives, which included no impacts to the 0.27 acre wetland. Prior to the submittal of
this application, the applicant conducted meetings with regulatory agency personal
including the USACE, NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ), and NC Wildlife Resource
Commission on November 30, 2004.
Because the wetland is located in the center of the site, it is already subject to an
increased in stormwater and litter. It is possible that this wetland area will continue to
decline and its important functions and values will become less effective.
5.5 Alternatives Conclusion
This discussion of alternatives, together with other documents submitted by the applicant
in support of its 404 Permit, shows that the project complies with the guidelines and
promotes public interest. As this analysis clearly demonstrates, the applicant's
development is designed to minimize impacts to the extent practicable by providing
stormwater management systems and suitable mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands.
s
10
• 6.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
This conceptual mitigation plan describes compensatory measures for unavoidable
permanent impacts to 0.27 acres of wetlands with the development of the River Bend
Business Park, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The mitigation plan is provided in support of River Bend Business Park, LLC permit
application and the mitigation measures are described below:
The applicant proposes to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program at a 1:1 ratio for
impacts to 0.70 acres of wetlands (0.41 acres in Phase I and 0.27 acres in Phase II). A
copy of the letter from EEP willing to accept payment into the mitigation fund is
attached.
6.1 Avoidance
The applicant's master plan for redevelopment of the former superfund is a high
density urban development. Given its urban location in Asheville and the
location's previous history as a superfund site, redevelopment is extremely
expensive and the applicant is trying to maximize their ability to provide an
economically viable project. The remaining 0.27 acre wetland is located adjacent
to the former Sayles-Bleachery ash disposal pile. To best meet the applicant's
project purpose this wetland cannot be avoided.
6.2 Minimization
Additional sedimentation and erosion control measures will be taken during the
grading and filling phases of the project. Best Management Practices (BMP) will be
employed to minimize the impacts to streams adjacent to the proposed development.
The BMP's that may be employed include siltation barriers, , sediment traps, and
sediment basins. Use of BMP's will be one of the most useful methods of
mitigation to minimize disturbance of natural stream/wetland functions. See Section
7.3.2 for additional information on Sediment and Erosion Control.
6.3 Mitigation
The applicant proposes to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program at a 1:1
ratio for impacts to 0.70 acres of wetlands (0.41 acres in Phase I and 0.27 acres in
Phase II). A copy of the letter from EEP willing to accept payment into the
mitigation fund is attached (Appendix B).
Prior to contacting the EEP, the applicant conducted a thorough review of off-site
wetland mitigation opportunities. This includes aerial, topo, soil, and cursory
pedestrian surveys of potential suitable sites for wetland restoration or preservation.
The study conducted in October and November of 2004, focused on the Swannanoa
River drainage between Asheville and Black Mountain.
11
Our review identified few suitable areas for wetland mitigation. Four potential
sites were identified during map research and reviewed in the field. Site 1 is a 10
acre tract adjacent to Wood Avenue just south of Tunnel Road. It is estimated
that the site has approximately 2-3 acres of wetlands. However, discussion with
representatives of the owners, Ballard family, this property is not for sale. Site 2
is located east of Asheville just north of Warren Wilson Road. The wetlands are
located adjacent to Beetree Creek and owned by the Anvil Corporation. After
further research it was discovered that these wetlands area adjacent to and part of
a wetland/pond system that extends onto the Chemtronics Property (Now owned
by Tandy Corporation). This is a former EPA Superfund Site with a well
documented history of groundwater contamination. After review of the USACE
FINAL Superfund Five Year Review Report, Chemtronics Site, Swannanoa, NC;
EPA ID: NCD095459392, this site was dropped from further consideration due to
potential liability concerns. Site 3 was identified from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service NWI maps as an approximately 6 acre wetland adjacent to the Swannanoa
River near Azalea Road. After a site inspection of the floodplain, CEC
determined that this area is an upland floodplain and not suitable for wetland
mitigation. Site 4 is located in Swannanoa and was identified as an agricultural
field with agricultural ditches apparently draining the lower floodplain property.
However, a site visit confirmed that, the site is now occupied by the Asheville
Christian Academy and is not available for wetland mitigation.
• In addition to these sites, drive by evaluations of the entire Swannanoa floodplain
did not identify other suitable options for wetland restoration. It is our opinion
that contributing to the NC EEP will be the most effective means of mitigating
unavoidable impacts from the project.

12
7.0 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1)
GUIDELINES
7.1 Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines
EPA interim regulations providing guidance for specification of deposit on sites
for dredge and fill material were published on September 17, 1993, in 40 C.F.R.
230 per Section 404(b)l. Sub-Parts A through I pertain to dredge and fill permits,
and apply to project sites similar to this project.
Sub-Part D presents a summary of compliance criteria for the 404(b)l guidelines.
This section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a
Dredge & Fill Permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist.
Alternatives reviewed, detailed in Section 7.0, were assessed for compliance with
404(b)1 guidelines.
Additional EPA guidance is presented related to general regulatory criteria,
wildlife value, and human health guidelines. The discharge of dredge and fill
material is considered permittable under these guidelines if the discharge activity:
does not contribute to violation of state water quality standards; does not violate
toxic effluent standards; does not jeopardize the continued existence of species
listed as T&E pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and
• subsequent amendments; does not cause degradation to any marine sanctuaries;
does not contribute to significant degradation of "waters of the United States;"
does not adversely affect human health as pertains to water supply; does not
adversely impact wildlife, food chain, and special aquatic sites; does not
contribute to the discharge of pollutants that may affect the food web; does not
have negative effects on the productivity of the aquatic ecosystem, or their
physical values; and does not have adverse impacts on recreation, aesthetic or
economic values. Additionally, the applicant is required to minimize potential
adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
7.2 Factual Determination
The USACE is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term
effects of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical,
chemical, and biological components of an aquatic environment.
7.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem
Sub-Part C of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines lists six physical and chemical
characteristics that must be assessed during the permit review, and the effects of
which must be determined to be minimal on the aquatic ecosystem.
•
13
0 7.3.1 Substrate
The modification of the substrate to an aquatic ecosystem can cause
changes in water circulation, depth, drainage patterns, water fluctuations,
water temperature, and benthic organism changes. No impacts to on-site
streams are proposed. Proposed alterations to on-site wetland consist of
filling 0.27 acres and mitigated through contributions to the EEP. The
applicant proposes to impact less than 0.27 acres of wetlands but mitigate
for the total wetland impacts Phase I and II (approximately 0.71 acres).
The designed and engineered surface water management plan will
alleviate potential problems resulting from alteration in drainage or water
level fluctuation patterns. The design of the stormwater management
system is intended to protect the chemical and biotic integrity of the water
quality and quantity aspects of the regional aquatic ecosystem.
7.3.2 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion Control)
The discharge of dredge and fill material can increase the amount of
suspended particulates in the aquatic ecosystem. While such an increase in
the turbidity level can have a negative effect on microorganisms and
invertebrates, it is expected to be controlled and minimized by the project
design. Through the placement of silt screens, hay bales, vegetated filter
strips, or other turbidity barriers, utilizing Best Management Practices will
control and minimize suspended particulates that may exit the area of
disturbance. The proposed project will be constructed and managed in such
a way as to minimize the potential for elevated levels of suspended
particulates.
The State of North Carolina enacted the Sediment and Erosion Control
law as part of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. This law
requires that anyone disturbing more than one acre of land must submit an
erosion control plan and receive approval from the N.C. Division of Land
Quality. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the project area
and other disturbed areas greater than one acre was designed by
Wolverton & Associates. The erosion and sedimentation control plan will
be reviewed and approved by the Buncombe County Soil and Erosion
Control Officer. The purpose of the erosion control plan is to develop
measures that will contain erosion during storm events before it reaches
streams or leaves the site.
Finally, many of the erosion control measures such as sediment traps can
be designed to accommodate the 2-year storm based on the state's
regulations.
14
7.3.3 Water Quality
The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not cause
increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem.
Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition
to possible chemical contamination shall be minimized or reduced. All
discharges of dredge and fill material will be controlled with a
sedimentation and erosion control plan.
It is anticipated that all of the material needed to fill the site will be taken
from on-site areas. The fill material used on-site will be clear and free of
chemical contamination. Should additional fill material be required,
suitable off-site clean fill material will be purchased and transported to the
project.
7.3.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation
The discharged dredge and fill material shall not adversely modify current
water circulation patterns by obstructed flow, changing direction or
velocity of water, or change in the velocity or flow of circulation. The
proposed activity should minimize the alterations to the dynamics of the
aquatic ecosystem. Flow will be maintained in the affected wetland
through adequately sized culverts. Water velocity should be maintained
by approved stormwater management systems. No impacts to current
patterns in water circulation are anticipated.
7.3.5 Normal Water Fluctuations
Changes in water level fluctuations, promoting a static or non-fluctuating
ecosystem may produce negative environmental effects, potentially caused
by the discharge of dredge and fill material into aquatic systems. The on-
site wetland habitat will be removed. The proposed project includes a
surface water management plan that provides naturally fluctuating water
levels based on design criteria and should not have an effect to off-site
waters.
7.3.6 Salinity
The concern in regard to physical and chemical characteristics of an
aquatic ecosystem is related to the salinity gradient from saltwater into
freshwater. A discharge of dredge and fill material can alter the salinity
and mixing zone between salt and freshwater. Since the project is located
inland, and is not tidally influenced, no modification to the salinity of on-
site or adjacent waters is expected.
•
15
• 7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem
Sub-Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern from
which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of
the ecosystem. These components are T&E species; fish, crustaceans, mollusks,
and other aquatic organisms in the food web; and other wildlife.
7.4.1 Threatened or Endangered Species
Discharge of dredge and fill material may cause the potential loss of
valuable habitat to wildlife and plant species listed as T&E by the USFWS
through the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and its subsequent additions
and amendments (50 C.F.R. 17.11). The project is planned so that there
are no filling impacts to 14.88 acres of wetlands. No impacts to federally
listed species are expected as described in Section 3.2 above.
7.4.2 Fishes, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the
Food Web
Discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web by impacting
animals such as invertebrates that make up the basis of a food chain. The
release of contaminants or an increase in turbidity may have potential
negative effects on certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may
also potentially increase the levels of exotic species.
Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the
U.S./wetlands on the project should reasonably be expected to have
minimal to no effects on wetland and aquatic systems in the vicinity.
7.4.3 Other Wildlife
The discharge of dredge and fill material can have a negative effect on the
breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred
food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species.
A minimal loss of wildlife habitat for wetland-dependent species may
result from construction of the project, the proposed mitigation should
compensate for any minor loss of habitat.
7.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Sub-Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential
impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges;
wetlands; mud flats; vegetated shallows; coral reefs; and riffle and pool
complexes.
16
7.5.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges
The discharge of dredge and fill material may cause potential negative
effects on adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges through impacts to
water quality, loss of wildlife habitat, additional human access, creating
the need for frequent maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment
of undesirable plant and animal species, and change of balance of habitat
type. No impacts on sanctuaries or refuges resulting from the
development of the project are anticipated.
7.5.2 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material will have adverse effects on
wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation.
Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat,
flood storage, and groundwater recharge. To offset impacts to wetlands,
the applicant is mitigating by contributing to the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
7.5.3 Mud Flats
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have negative
impacts on mud flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine
systems. Since the project does not contain any mud flat communities,
loss of value to these ecosystems will not occur on-site.
7.5.4 Vegetated Shallows
Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that contain rooted
aquatic vegetation. This type of habitat generally exists within estuarine,
marine, and some freshwater lakes and rivers. No such permanently
inundated vegetated shallow habitats exist on the project; therefore, there
are no expected impacts to this type of ecosystem.
7.5.5 Coral Reefs
Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. No coral reefs exist
on the project; therefore, no impacts to this type of ecosystem will occur.
7.5.6 Riffle and Pool Complexes
Discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle and pool
complexes may potentially have a negative impact to water quality and
wildlife value. Riffle and pool ecosystems generally exist along steeper
gradients of streams and rivers, on and in the immediate vicinity of the
17
0 project. The impacted jurisdictional area does not contain riffle and pool
stream complexes.
7.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics
Sub-Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use
of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and
commercial fisheries, water-related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar
preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines. No effects on
human use characteristics can be anticipated from the proposed development of
the project.
7.6.1 Municipal and Private Water Supply
Significant discharges of dredge and fill material should not have a
negative impact on water quality serving as a water supply for
municipalities or private developments. There should be no affect to
municipal; or private drinking water supplies. Potable water is being
supplied to Phase II by the Asheville municipal water supply system.
7.6.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have a negative
effect on water quality. However, the connection to the Swannanoa River
is entirely culverted. There is no recreational or commercial fishery
associated with the proposed impact area. Phase I riparian buffers
(approximately 13 acres) were established to assist in the long-term
protection and viability of the Swannanoa River.
7.6.3 Water-Related Recreation
A discharge of dredge and fill material may have a negative effect on
water-related recreation by impairing or destroying water resources that
support recreational activities. Development of the project is not expected
to have negative impacts on water-related recreation activities as the
privately owned 0.27 acre wetland has not provided recreational uses in
the past.
7.6.4 Aesthetics
The discharge of dredge and fill materials into wetland ecosystems may
adversely impact the aesthetic value of natural aquatic ecosystems. The
project has been planned to eliminate impacts to the on-site wetlands and
primary streams. Payment is being proposed the EEP to restore and
protect wetlands in the French Broad River Basin.
s
is
0 7.6.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores,
Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves
No areas as described above will be affected by the proposed development
of the project.
7.7 Summary
Based on the EPA guidelines identified within 40 C.F.R. 230, and enumerated
herein, a number of potential environmental impacts have been presented and
subsequently addressed. The proposed permanent impact to 0.27 acres of
wetlands will not cause any off-site adverse impacts. Mitigation provided should
more than compensate for any on-site impacts.
E
•
19
8.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contrary to the public
interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed
in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below.
8.1 Conservation
The redevelopment of the former superfund site does include an on-site
conservation of natural resources. The applicant has set aside approximately 13
acres of riparian buffers along the Swannanoa River. In addition, contribution into
the NC EEP will allow appropriate mitigation of wetland resources in the French
Broad River Basin. The EEP mitigation is planned to be a comprehensive
watershed approach that maximizes the protection and enhancement of wetlands
and waters of the US.
8.2 Economics
River Bend Village overall is expected to employ several hundred people, and to
have a significant economic positive impact on the property tax base for Buncombe
County as well as a positive impact on the local retail industry. Municipal
sewer/water extensions are being paid for privately for this project and the roads
within the project site will be privately owned and maintained.
8.3 Aesthetics
The project has been carefully planned by the project developers and reviewed by
the City of Asheville to minimize impacts to the aesthetics of the area. The high-
density nature of the project is consistent with the urban development of the
adjacent land owners.
8.4 General Environmental Concerns
Other than wetland impacts, proposed urban development activities on the project
site would have no significant identifiable impacts upon other environmental
components due to the nearly century long use of this property as heavy industrial.
8.5 Wetlands
Development of the project will impact 0.27 acres of on-site wetlands. Payment
into the NC EEP for impacts to .70 acres (Phase I and Phase II) of wetlands should
off-set these impacts.

20
8.6 Historic Properties
The Sayles-Bleachery was documented in the Historic Architectural Resources of
Dotivntotivi: Asheville prior to its demolition in 2003. There were no known
structures on the Phase II portion of the project.
8.7 Fish and Wildlife Values
The project is a high-density urban redevelopment project on a former Superfund
site. As this site has been thoroughly developed and managed for nearly 90 years
there has been minimal fish and wildlife values on the project site. Phase I of the
development has provided for a substantial, 13 acre riparian buffer along the
Swannanoa River.
8.8 Flood Hazards
Phase II is within Zone X, outside of the 100 year floodplain (Federal Insurance
Rate Maps, Community Panel Number 37021C 0309, effective date May 1996).
This area is located directly in the Back of the existing PetSmart store. The
applicant does not propose any impacts to wetlands or streams within the 100-
year floodplain.
8.9 Floodplain Values
The wetland is located at the base of steep topography on the northern portion of
Phase II. The applicant does not propose any impacts to wetlands or streams
within the 100-year floodplain. There is some floodplain associated with the
Swannanoa River in Phase I. However, Phase I of the development has provided
for a substantial, 13 acre riparian buffer along the Swannanoa River.
8.10 Land Use
The proposed project is consistent with the existing land uses and zoning for the
property and surrounding area.
8.11 Navigation
No navigable waters exist on site. The proposed project will not effect navigation.
8.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion
An erosion control plan will be implemented as part of the construction plan for the
project (See Section 7.3.2 above). During the construction process, Best
Management Practices will be followed. These BMP's will include the
construction of swales, erosion and sediment control structures, turbidity barriers,
and other measures that will prevent sediment transport off the project into other
21
waters. Use of devices such as silt screens, staked hay bales, temporary grassing,
wind rowing of vegetation, and other mechanisms to prevent turbidity will be
employed.
8.13 Recreation
Phase I of the redevelopment provides 13.5acres of river front park as a community
greenway and river buffer. Developers have constructed a paved pedestrian
walking path along the river throughout the park, as well as artistic and historic
exhibit features Public access is allowed and encouraged along this corridor which
will eventually connect with other segments of the City of Asheville's River Front
project. This is the first and currently the only such project on the Swannanoa
River.
8.14 Water Supply and Conservation
Potable water will be provided to the project by the municipal water service.
8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
No short term or long term adverse water quality impacts are anticipated. BMP's
will be incorporated during construction. Stream buffers are being provided to
assure long-term stream protection and integrity.
A stormwater management plan will be designed by Day Engineering and
Associates to satisfy the future stormwater management needs of the proposed
development. Although this plan is not finalized, the draft plan includes the use
of several stormwater management techniques that will direct stormwater into
biofilters or wet ponds from the impervious area associated with the development.
Stormwater from the development will be directed to flow through permanent
stormwater management facilities in the approved plan. No direct discharge of
stormwater to streams is designed for the project.
The stormwater management facilities will be designed to meet the guidelines set
forth in the Stormwater Best Management Practices, NCDENR 1999 and is
required for certain areas by the 401 Water Quality Certification. Biofilters are
designed and configured to provide significant removal of suspended solids,
nutrients, and pollutants from incoming stormwater. Design parameter includes
the provision of sufficient surface area to promote settling of potential pollutants.
The stormwater biofilters are designed for a target sediment removal rate at or
above 85%.
The stormwater management plan will be approved by NCDWQ prior to impacts
to streams. Stormwater management is a requirement under the 401 Water
Quality Certification and may require periodic maintenance to meet stormwater
. plan requirements.
22
8.16 Energy Needs
There are no known sources of materials on the project that could be used to
generate energy, nor will the project contribute to any other energy production. It is
expected that Duke Power will supply the electrical energy needed for
development.
8.17 Safety
The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible considerations
for public safety. This includes approximately 7 miles of sidewalks associated with
Phase I and II as well as all road and speeds designed to meet NC DOT standards.
8.18 Food and Fiber Production
The project site is not utilized for food production or silvicultural activities. This
site is the former location of the Sayles-Bleachery and was used as a heavy
industrial site from 1925 to the 1990's.
8.19 Mineral Needs
The project fulfills no current mineral needs. No mining activities are planned as
part of this development.
8.20 Considerations of Property Ownership
The proposed development of the project will not in any ways hinder surrounding
private property owners from enjoying, managing, or developing their properties in
any legal fashion they may choose consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
The address of the project property owner is as follows:
Owner: River Bend Business Park, LLC.
Contact: Harley Dunn
PO Box 528
Asheville, NC 28802-0528
[phone]
[phone]Fax
8.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public
The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by providing
recreational and residential facilities in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
23
• 9.0 SUMMARY
The Phase II redevelopment of the Sayles-Bleachery is planned to be accomplished in
phases that will take at least three years to complete. The applicant proposes all
compensatory mitigation prior to or concurrent with remaining redevelopment activities.
•
•
24

??1? M "•?` I _.:.?? 411 I •
?G? f
5 -1.
I I fl l
rv J azec

di
?
* t j ?y_
N . r
A. k r
re,..,,,
1
R I
M
f ? ?
1
- ,
MItl? ;
6 •
IC

P
J

v

J a
t>
r1' ail, t? ' ?I.
{ ?? / //?? ,?,?
?+•.
f
i t
r
I ? M..r X11 -
-< 71
M it
CLEARWATER
River Bend Business Park Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Buncombe County, 224 South Grove Strect, Suite F Vicinity Map
Hendersonville, NC 28792 Figure 1
North Carolina
828-698-9800
a a

-i

I t'
n

tip! - .?-• .;. ? •, .
r .. -

i

-?

Proposed Wetland Impact
0.27 acres

Interstate 240

CLEARWATER
RIVER BEND BUSINESS PARK Environmental Consultants, Inc. WETLAND IMPACT MAP
PHASE II 224 South Grove Street, Suite F FIGURE 2
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C. Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
River Bend Asheville Quadrangle 01/11/05 Flqure 1
W UL"01.000 W UL"3U.uuu W WGSU4 UZ"CY.UUU' W
7?? , u r1/ 1 t
Vw-
z I(A y yP :?` j i 1 • ; Yr ?' ?!
c?y> ,
/
?? ). ?iV,•t `?.?? _ L? ? )/?T r, it. ,?i ? elf. i? ,.? 'rrr?•l
1 ?• •r
z a????C ` ?"i"`IJ 1J ? Irv ??? l(??lr?,.,'Y?+?' ?\???,?y?: ?•jeq n?• t ?'r jr ?;:Y.?,y?-y i': ?
•.i e,lL[? Y'?`,:Fi'l\ :s 1fFr r0. \\?.i:YS. `u6:.:?1?/r"'CC•;/il'' ri1'.. r..bl.%/oi(t n `Ac .,-il..r
Pro'ect'Sit?1/,?! CFA
11MYf?nMG "- • l `v "'.'?'I, V xw, } _??il '? 9M N 5
f?'?.? fi ?? i t ?i'? 1i I zos?? • f
( N ?h?
o . Nt t f?? l ° r ?`? YJlJ {{?
In/i
c ?: ? r n+.. ?p JfY
L ?• .? rff//?. ?'? .. ./A 1 '? >- '?? Vj .I/1 ??? u
82°32.000' W 82°31.000' W 132-30.000'W Wcse4 A2029.00n' W
160 e s ,Mf
6• Q.o?1? fEET Q N 1N0 AAETIFZ
CLEARWATER
i River Bend Business Park Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Buncombe County 224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Nnrth r arnlinn Hendersonville, NC 28792
Z
0
S
m
m
2
ri
r
n
n

J
i
USGS Topographic Map
I
Figure 3

? NEW PIPE
PROPOSED FILL
/ EXIST. GROUND
Wetlands TYPICAL SECTION
N.T.S.
Figure 4
0
Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
For
Riverbend Marketplace
Buncombe County, North Carolina
August 8, 2003
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report details methods used and an assessment of survey results for a
threatened and endangered (T&E) species survey and habitat assessment for the
approximately 79-acre Riverbend Marketplace project. The T&E species survey was
conducted to determine the occurrence of or the potential for animal and plant species listed
as federally threatened or endangered to exist on the proposed site. Completion of this
survey was directed by and complies with current state and federal regulations [Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543) and the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect. 113 article 25) and North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979 (N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12-22)].
The referenced site is bordered by the Swannanoa River to the north and Interstate-240 to
the south, in Buncombe County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Access to the site is available
from Swannanoa River Road (N.C. Route 81) on the northern border of the site.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
C7
A preliminary protected species survey was conducted June17, 2003, on the proposed site
by C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. to determine potential for occurrences of
animal and plant species listed as endangered or threatened by current Federal regulations.
Recent correspondence solicited from the USFWS database provided existing data
concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened or endangered species in
Buncombe County, North Carolina. The USFWS lists the following twelve Federally
threatened and endangered species as occurring or potentially occurring in Buncombe
County. The species listed below were included in the surveys and assessment.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bo turtle Clemm s muhlenbur 'i Threatened*
Eastern cougar Felis concolor cougar Endangered
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucon: s sabrinus coloratus Endangered
S tfin chub H bo sis monacha Threatened
Gray bat M otis isencens Endangered
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonata raveneliana Endangered
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
•
Oyster mussel E ioblasma ca sae ormis Endangered
Bunched arrowhead Sa ittaria asiculata Endangered
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarraceniajonesii Endangered
Virginia s irea S iraea vir 'niana Threatened
Rock gnome lichen G mnodernta lineare Endangered
'Threatened due to similarity of appearance with northern bog turtle
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program database was also reviewed and provided existing data
concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened and endangered species in
Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey by C1earWater
Environmental Consultants staff. During field surveys, site habitats were identified and
compared with recognized habitats for each of the twelve species potentially occurring on
the site. Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Due to the disturbed
condition of most of the site (Sayles•Biltmore Bleacheries mill), evidence of past
silvicultural practices on the eastern portion of the site, and a general lack of suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that any protected species exist on the property.
3.0 CONCLUSION
During completion of threatened and endangered species habitat assessments for the
Riverbend Marketplace, no listed species were observed. It is the opinion of C1earWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally and state protected species are not likely to
be present within the site. As such, development of the proposed 79-acre Riverbend
Marketplace is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any threatened or endangered
species.
Although no threatened and endangered species were identified during this survey,
because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and endangered species
and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible that endangered
species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any potential
findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with appropriate
agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
0
•

,?f`i?viller?
?hrt?Il
r
1
Irth
•

?i
t ?

13012-001 F1g-..h10 D7
v Owe 70
r --
, r ;r2 f `.. II
I
{ ri f
81
I I f1,? .rf,? ?. -
,
ti e, i
Sir r
11
J r fr
f

. r
tip Iei1
?+ f

Sayles IAlageW;',
W;',

r
?
• 1
1 S - ? ••r?
?
r _ f 4 f
f:-r
! ?
f
FR
rfrLr:z

:4:r< e:re r fir. _ reyn
1
1
i -
( i
l
Clearwater
Environmental
consultants
Horne Properties, Inc. August 2003
Riverbend Marketplace N.T.S.
83012-001
E 0I0gCJ Site Location Map
olutlonsi Figure 1
cos stem
Eai er?en
PROGRAM
November 17, 2004
Clement Riddle
Clear Water Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Subject: Project: Riverbend Marketplace
County: Buncombe
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for riparian wetland impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that the decision
by the NCEEP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be approved by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of
the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP for impacts associated with this project is
appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. 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
forward copies of the 404 Permit/401 Certification to Ecosystem Enhancement Program in order for an invoice to be
generated.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated November 15, 2004, the wetlands restoration that is necessary
to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The maximum
amount of mitigation that the NCEEP will accept for this vroiect is also indicated in this table.
Stream
linear feet Riparian Wetlands
acres Riparian Buffer
(ft2
Impacts 0.70
Mitigation Maximum 1.40
The riparian wetlands mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Section 404
Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 06010105 of the French Broad Fear River Basin.
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of Transportation
signed July 22, 2003.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
James B. Stanfill
Strategic Planning Supervisor
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
David Baker, USACOE-Asheville
Kevin Barnett, DWQ Regional Office-Asheville
is File Q 6
RUto G?l?... F ... Pf'OtP,Gt7?'C9 Olaf f? State.,
1MENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 / 919-733-5208 / www.nceep.net
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SECTION 404 PERMIT

NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 CERTIFICATION
January 2005
Applicant:
River Bend Business Park, LLC
Contact: Harley Dunn
PO Box 528
Asheville, NC 28802
828-277-6000
Prepared By:
C1carWater Enviromnental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite #F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
828-698-9800
CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
January 21, 2005
Mr. Scott McLendon
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Individual Permit Application
River Bend Business Park
Buncombe County, NC
Dear Scott and Cyndi:
Enclosed for your review is an Individual Permit application for stream and wetland impacts
associated with the construction of River Bend Business Park, Phase II, a mixed use urban
redevelopment project in Asheville, (Buncombe County) North Carolina. The following
information is included with the application as supporting documents:
1) 8.5 X 11" plan drawings including stream impacts
2) List of Adjacent Land Owners
3) Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment dated August 2003
4) DWQ Permit Application Fee
Please do not hesitate to call me at [phone] to discuss this application or if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
1. 912 C %U
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
enclosures
cc: Mr. Harley Dunn, River Bend LLC.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OI\iB APPROVAL N0.0710-003
Expires October 1996
33CFR 325
rage 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
ing burden for this collection of information is estimated to ave
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
ect of this collection oC information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
way, Suite 1204 f Information Operations and Reports, Washinf ton, DDCa20503g Please DO NOT?REITURN your form t ei her of tthose adOdres es f Completednt and
rwork Reduction Project (0710 0003), g
Mmmerthelocationo
must be submitted to the District En ineer havin 'urisdiction over the location of the ro oscd activit .
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable waters of the
United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Untied States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information
is voluntary. If information is not provided, ho%vcver, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample
drawings and 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 4.DATE
NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME & TITLE (an agent is not req
River Bend LLC CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
ATTN: Atr. Marley Dunn c/o it. Clement Riddle
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
16 Governor's View Road PO Box 528 224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Asheville, NC Asheville, NC 28802 Hendersonville, NC 28792
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence N/A a. Residence N/A
b. Business [phone] b. Business 828/698-9800
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, R. Clement Riddle, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in
supp4A' rmit application.
,'Z,_.,_ /- ?! -0,5
APPIG A URE DATE
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
River Bend Business Park
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 114. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Swannanoa River I N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Buncombe
COUNTY
16. OTHER LOCATION DESC
NC
STATE
IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
The site is located eastt of Interstate 240, approximately one (1) miles east of Tunnel Road in Asheville. Access to the site is provided by a new developemnt bridge
and road along Swannnnoa River Road..
• 17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From highway 25 turn east onto Swannanoa Rivcr Road (NC Route 81) and continue towards the intersection of Interstate 240 and NC Route 81. Turn right into
property entrance, located approximately one-third mile from Interstate 240 ) Figure 1.
•
•
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include
See attached description.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
To build a high density mixed use urban community in the mountains of western North Carolina. This community will have retail, commercial, office, and
residential uses. See attached description.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGt ll wtvw'
20. Rcason(s)for Discharge
Construction of Phase ll of the River Bend Business Park.
MATERIAL IS TO BE
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and tI
Clean fill material approximately 1,300 cubic yards.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters HMO (se
0.27 acres of fill in wetlands for construction of building and parking.
See attached description.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completed? Yes
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc.,
a supplemental list).
See attached.
Type in Cubic Yards
THE COMPLETED WORK
Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be
here,
25. List of Other Certifications or ApprovaWDcnials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described to t ms nppucauUu.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION # DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
USACE Jurisdictional Verification July 11, 2003
USACE Nationwide Permit 39 October 15, 2003
NCDWQ 401 Certification September 29, 2003
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plan permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority ' to undertake the word described herein or am acting as the duly
4SIGUR-aE rued agent of the applicant.
- I -Lk - d 5
r he ;2 -ate k-6
APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE 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 I 1 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 entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
•
Horne Properties - Asheville LLC
412 North Cedar Bluff Rd, Ste. 205
Knoxville, TN 37923
Easy Access Property, LTD
C/O Bob Hughes
6409 Westgate Road
Raleigh, NC 27617
0
Adjacent Land Owners
Horne Development River Bend, LLC
412 North Cedar Bluff Rd, Suite 205
Knoxville, TN 37923
Mountain Property Association, Inc.
300 North Winsted Ave.
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
Six Oaks LLC
190 B Continuum Drive
Fletcher, NC 28732

•
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SECTION 404 PERMIT

NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 CERTIFICATION
January 2005

Applicant:
River Bend Business Park, LLC
Contact: Harley Dunn
PO Box 528
Asheville, NC 28802
828-277-6000
Prepared By:
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite #F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
828-698-9800
40,
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.0

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
89
8.10
8.11
8.12
8.13
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... .........................
. 2
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. .........................
2
Project Location ............................................................................................... ...........................
Project Purpose and Scope of Work ................................................................ ........................
... 3
..........
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................. ..............
................... 3
Vegetative Communities .................................................................................
Endangered, and Species of Special Concern ..............................
Threatened ........
........................... 3
,
PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT - River Bend Business Park ........................... 5
.................. ..........................
Mixed use Development ................................................................
..........................................................................................
Stormwater Pond ........................... 5
...
Utilities ............................................................................................................
..... .......................... 5
............................
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 6
Overview ........................................................................................................ ............................
..... 7
Project Justification ....................................................................................... .......................
................. 9
The Site ..........................................................................................................
Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts) ...........
10
....... 10
Alternatives Conclusion ................................................................................. ...................
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN ............................................... ..........................11
.............. 11
Avoidance ....................................................................................................... ............
............ 11
Minimization .................................................................................................. ..............
11
............
Mitigation .......................................................................................................... . ..
1
3
MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES .............
U.S. ENVIRON 13
Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines .......... ...........................
...... 13
Factual Determination ....................... ........................................................... .....................
13
Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem .........
Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem ................. ........................... 16
.... 16
.
Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites ................................................... .
.....................
Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics ........................................... ........................... 18
19
...............
Summary ........................................................................................................
TEREST CONSIDERATIONS ............................................. ............
0
2
...........................
PUBLIC IN ....... 20
Conservation ................................................................................................. .....................
......... 20
Economics .................................................................................................... ...................
20
.........
Aesthetics ...................................................................................................... ...................
20
General Environmental Concerns ................................................................. ............................
.......... 20
Wetlands ....................................................................................................... ..................
..... 21
Historic Properties ........................................................................................ .......................
. 21
Fish and Wildlife Values .............................................................................. ...........................
....... 21
Flood Hazards ............................................................................................... .....................
..... 21
Floodplain Values ......................................................................................... .......................
........... 21
Land Use ....................................................................................................... .................
.......21
...
....................................................................................................
Navigation ..................
21
Shore Erosion and Accretion ....................................................................... .............................
............22
Recreation .................................................................................................... .................
22
Water Supply and Conservation .................................................................. .............................
5 Water Quality (Stormwater Management) .................................................. ............................. 22
..... 23
6 Energy Needs ............................................................................................... ........................
23
..............
7 Safety ........................................................................................................... 4
...............
•
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 3. Master Plan Map
Figure 4 Typical Fill X-Section
APPENDICES
Appendix A Threatened and Endangered Species Report
Appendix B North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program letter
• 1.0 INTRODUCTION
River Bend Business Park, LLC, (the applicant), proposes to develop Phase II of a master
planned mixed use community on a portion of the 90-acre tract known as River Bend
Business Park (formerly the Sayles-Bleachery) in Buncombe County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). River Bend Business Park, LLC is an Asheville based real estate development
firm. Phase II, to be known as River Bend Village, will utilize approximately 18.5 acres
of that property. The site is accessed from the east off of Swannanoa River Road and/or
River Ridge Drive (Figure 2).
Phase I was recently developed by Home Properties, a Knoxville, Tennessee based
development firm. During Phase I of the project Horne Properties obtained a Section 404
Permit (October 15, 2003) and 401 Water Quality Certification (September 29, 2003) to
impact 0.41 acres of jurisdictional area; specifically, 0.25 acres of wetlands and 790 linear
feet of intermittent and aquatically unimportant stream.
River Bend envisions a Phase II development project that combines mixed use high density
development for approximately 176 apartment condominiums, 84 individual town houses,
and 96,000 square feet of commercial (office and retail) space. This plan has been
approved by the City of Asheville. Phase II of the development is the completion of the
proposed master plan which is the re-development of a former EPA listed Superf ind site,
is the Sayles Bleachery. The Phase II project boundary contains a 0.27 acre jurisdictional
wetland that drains towards the Swannanoa River.
The applicant has owned the land since 1990 and has expended considerable resources in
design of a comprehensive master plan for the development. The master plan is supported
by a thorough site selection process, followed by extensive planning, engineering analysis
and survey of the physical and biotic components of the site. The physical and biotic
surveys included recent aerial photography, 2 foot topographic surveys, complete Section
404 jurisdictional surveys, threatened and endangered (T&E) species surveys of the entire
site. Typical of master planned developments, the proposed project is being executed in
several phases.
0
0 2.0 BACKGROUND
River Bend Business Park, LLC, the applicant, brought in an experienced commercial
developer, Horne Properties, to help design the master plan for the proposed development
of the property and to purchase and develop Phase I of the venture.
The initial planning efforts focused on the entire site. The natural features of the land
were studied to determine the type of development plan that would best fit the property.
It is important to note, that one of the dominant factors of the intense planning process
was coordination with the City of Asheville in revitalizing a former superfund site into a
significant urban development that has multiple benefits and generally meets the needs
and welfare of the public. The project team including Wolverton & Associates,
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc., Masters Gentry Architects, Horne
Properties, Day Engineering and others spent many days in the field to determine the best
uses for the project site. The proposed urban master plan maximizes the re-development
of the former superfund site.
2.1 Project Location
The River Bend Business Park is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina
and is accessed by traveling west on Swannanoa River Road (NC Highway 81)
from the intersection of Swannanoa River Road and Fairview Road, then turning
south across the Swannanoa River at the new Bleachery Boulevard bridge (Figure
1). The project is located on the left side of Bleachery Boulevard approximately
'/2 mile past the bridge. The project elevation is approximately 2,150+ ft. (Figure
3).
2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this project is the urban re-development of a former Superfund
site that will create a high-density mixed use urban community that includes
residential living, retail shopping, and dining opportunities to the area.
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina and consists of cleared
land, nearly all of which was altered in some manner by the former ownership of the
Sayles-Bleachery. Elevations range
the Swarmanoa Riverttoythe 2,20 northetThMSL to 2,009 feet
e property to the
MSL. The site is bordered by
south is currently developed as a shopping center (River Ridge Shopping Center). The
site is bordered to the west by Interstate 240.
The site contains one jurisdictional area, a 0.27-acre wetland. This wetland drains
towards the Swannanoa River through a culvert, which was previously permitted by
Horne Properties in Phase I of the development. The Swannanoa River is classified as C
Waters by the North Carolina Department of Water Quality. No named or unnamed
streams are located on the property. Most of the site has been cleared and graded. The
site contains one non-graded habitat type. This habitat types is a forested wetland
(Section 3.1)
3.1 Vegetative Communities
During our site visits, one habitat type was identified on the property: forested wetlands.
The following is a description of this habitat type identified on the referenced site and its
likelihood to harbor or support listed species. A soils discussion is also provided.
3.1.1 Forested Wetland
This freshwater wetland is a seepage and stormwater influenced habitat. There is
no dominant overstory within the wetland. The dominant mid-story scrub-shrub
stratum consists of black willow (Salix nigra), and silver maple with an
herbaceous layer of soft rush (Juncus effuses). The wetland areas were delineated
by ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. in June 2003. The wetland
delineation was verified in the field by Mr. David Baker on July 9, 2003.
Given the historical and recent disturbance to this small isolated wetland, we
cannot classify this area as a high quality wetland. However, it is currently
proving stormwater and ground water recharge functions and values.
3.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
were contacted regarding the known or potential occurrences of federally listed
threatened or endangered species or habitat types found on the River Bend Business Park
project area. The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey by ClearWater
Environmental Consultants staff. During field surveys, site habitats were identified and
compared with recognized habitats for each of the twelve species potentially occurring on
the site. Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Due to the disturbed
• condition of most of the site (Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries mill), evidence of past
silvicultural practices on the eastern portion of the site, and a general lack of suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that any protected species exist on the property. A comprehensive
threatened and endangered species survey was prepared August 8, 2003 and is included
as an attachment to this application (Appendix A).
An updated field review of the proposed site was conducted in October 2004. It is the
opinion of C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally protected species are
still not likely to be present within the site. As such, development of the proposed River
Bend Business Park is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or
endangered species.
Although no federally listed threatened and endangered species were identified during
these surveys, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and
endangered species and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible
that endangered species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any
potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with
appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.

E
4
• 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT - River Bend Business Park
The 18.5-acre Phase II tract contains 0.27 acres of jurisdictional Wetlands. The applicant
proposes to permanently impact 0.27-acres of the above-described wetland of the
U.S./wetlands to achieve the previously stated project purpose (Figure 2). Specifically,
the applicant proposes to impact 0.27-acres of permanent fill for mixed use urban
redevelopment. Nearly all of the impacts are associated with building development. The
residential lots, utilities, roads, and stormwater management facilities do not propose any
impacts to jurisdictional systems.
Mitigation is being proposed off-site by paying into the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (acceptance letter attached Appendix B). This mitigation will
offset the 0.27 acres of wetlands associated with Phase II of River Bend as well as 0.41
acres of Phase I (previously permitted).
4.1 Mixed use Development
To accomplish the project purpose, the applicant is proposing 96,000 square feet
of commercial development, 260 residential units, parking, and 3.5 miles of
sidewalks. Specifically, the area added to the development by means of this
permit application includes approximately 3.5 acres. The planned square footage
on this site exceeds 22,000 square feet. Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of
material will be used to fill this portion of the site and bring it to a grade nearly
similar to the adjacent development pad.
4.2 Stormwater Pond
One pond is proposed to provide stormwater management as required by the NC
Division of Water Quality. This pond is located in the northern portion of the site
and has been previously approved by the NC Division of Water Quality (letter
dated February 17, 2004). No jurisdictional impacts are proposed for the
stormwater pond. See Section 8.15 for more information on stormwater
requirements. Any modifications to the approved stormwater plan will be
submitted to DWQ for their review and approval prior to impacts to the wetlands.
4.3 Utilities
There are no proposed permanent or temporary impacts to streams or wetlands
onsite resulting from the installation of utilities. It is the intent of the applicant to
bring electricity to the site via overhead lines or located underground and within
the proposed road right of ways. Drinking water will be provided to each
building site via municipal water supply system. The site will utilize the
Asheville municipal waster water treatment facility. Access to the sewer line
. system is available on the north and south sides of the project site.
0 5.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Overview
This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the Applicant to assist the Wilmington
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in evaluating the application for
authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 at The
River Bend Business Park development in Buncombe County, North Carolina. An
analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines requirements for consideration of
alternatives as required by 40C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below. Actions taken to
avoid and minimize wetland impacts are presented in Section 6.0 of this Application.
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge
of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain
"sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the
requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information
needed to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the
Guidelines is commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact (as
determined by the functions of the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed
activity) and the scope/cost of the project." [See ACOE/EPA Memorandum to the
Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p. 2, dated August 23, 1994,
hereinafter the "Memorandum."] As noted in the Memorandum at pages 3-4, the
404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists
which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." [See Memorandum.]
"If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is
not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Register
85343 (December 24, 1980).]
Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).]
Clarification is provided in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be
considered in the determination of practicability. An alternative site is considered
"available" if it is presently owned by the applicant or "could reasonably be obtained,
utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed
activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230. 1 0(a)(2).
Our intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope/cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs" was
substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the
6
applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry
which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines.
The EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an
explicit, but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic
sites are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are environmentally preferable."
Of course, the general requirements that impacts to the aquatic system not be
acceptable also applies. This presumption "...contains sufficient flexibility to reflect
circumstances of unusual cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December 24, 1980). It is
clear from these stipulations that a preferable alternative may allow filling in certain
wetland areas and subsequent mitigation and/or management of other areas.
5.2 Project Justification
Master Planning and permitting large/long term development projects depend highly
upon having flexibility to implement sound land planning and engineering design
principles which are often conceptual at the time of permitting, but which must
include available land for development to economically justify the project, reasonable
site access, construction of utilities and stormwater systems, and appropriate location
of various land use amenities.
The applicant has expended significant resources to conduct intensive surveys and
assessments, including land survey, wetland delineation and survey, threatened and
_ endangered species survey, intensive land planning and market analysis. The
information gathered from these tasks has been considered in preparation of the
master plan submitted with this permit application. Market analysis conducted by
the applicant confirms the aptness of the project site for the intended purpose of re-
development of a former superfund site. However, for the project to be economically
viable, enough real estate must be made available for amenities to cover development
costs and provide a reasonable profit. Since the land area is finite, development costs,
particularly construction costs, must be limited for the project to be successful.
It is important to note that this site is uniquely well situated for the development of a
high-density, mixed use urban development. The site is located adjacent to interstate
240, less than one-half mile from Interstate 40 and is approximately 1 mile from the
center of Asheville retail center, Tunnel Road. The proximity to Tunnel Road is the
premium retail location in Asheville and provides the best potential for an
economically successful project. It is for these reasons that the applicant has been
trying to begin this re-development project for the last 10 years. No other site of this
size affords the same opportunity for retail-commercial success for the applicant and
improved tax base for the City and, at the same time, benefit the community by
removing a very serious problem, the abandoned and former Superfund site, the
Sayles-Bleachery. At the time of purchase, the proposed impacts for Phase I and
Phase II were within the framework of a Nationwide Permit 26 for minor impacts to
jurisdictional areas.
7
r?
The proposed redevelopment will contain a variety of uses, generally consistent with
their other successful mixed use "sustainable development" projects in the southeast.
These land uses include single-family homes, commercial, retail, and office space,
and infrastructure such as utilities and 3.5 miles of sidewalks. The proposed land use
provides the future residents with an attractive high-density and aesthetically pleasing
place to live, work, and shop. The proposed plan is the highest and best use of the
former superfund site given its urban location.
The additional 3.5 acres that will be made available comprise an approximate value of
over $500,000 plus financial return on 22,000 additional square feet. This portion of
the project represents a significant economic benefit to the applicant and a substantial
anchor tenant to the overall mixed use community.
When reviewing this application, the USACE is also required to consider the public
interest in this project. In considering the public interest, the USACE must evaluate
the probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may
be expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments."
In balancing these interests, the USACE must consider the public and private need for
the proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations, and
the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project.
The USACE also considers other factors, including:
Conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion,
recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of the
property ownership and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Furthermore, the USACE regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the
district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors over the last three years through
an exhaustive planning process and believes that the proposed project is clearly in the
public interest. In fact, the proposed project master plan has been altered numerous
times to specifically accommodate the City of Asheville planning request to improve
the development for the general public.
The project should be able to benefit the public in terms of conservation, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, fish and wildlife values, and water quality. Most
importantly, while the project will impact 0.27 acres of wetlands, the overall wetland
impact for the project is minimal and is offset by adequate mitigation. The end result
is a contribution to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP_ of
approximately $18,000 for future restoration, preservation of wetlands in the
8
Asheville area. This amount should compensate for the total loss of wetlands (Phase
I and Phase II of the project) which is 0.71 acres.
It is our understanding that EEP will acquire wetlands that will be subject to
conservation easements to ensure permanent preservation. Because these streams and
wetlands perform valuable water quality functions, the preservation of these
important areas will contribute in perpetuity to wetlands, stream, fish, and wildlife
protection and improved water quality.
As with any large development, water quality protection and adequate stormwater
management are primary concerns. The applicant will respond to these concerns by
developing a stormwater management plan that may include grassed/infiltration
swales, biofilters, and stormwater ponds.
Additionally, the applicant has already set aside approximately 13 acres of river front
property along the Swannanoa River. The protection of the Swannanoa River buffer
further demonstrates the applicant's willingness to meet the needs of the public
interest.
5.3 The Site
Phase II of River Bend Business Park is comprised of approximately 18.5 acres, part
• of a 90 acre tract of land that was purchased by River Bend in 1990. This site, the
former Sayles-Bleachery plant, was classified as a Superfund Site by the EPA. River
Bend has spent over a decade working towards cleanup and redevelopment of the site.
The re-development of this site will provide an outstanding mixed-use center close to
downtown Asheville.
A. Property is adequately served by community infrastructure.
The 90-acre parcel is served by Duke Power for electricity and BellSouth
provides telephone service to the site. Potable water and sewer services
currently are available to the site.
B. Close to Urban Center.
The applicant's site is ideally located for community development. The
project is located adjacent to Interstate 240 and the heart of the City of
Asheville Urban retail Center (Tunnel Road).
Of the $3.43 billion in retail sales recorded in Buncombe County during FY
2002-03, $2.51 billion or 73 percent of those sales occurred in the City of
Asheville. Among the ten largest cities in North Carolina, Asheville had the
highest level of retail sales per resident in FY 2002-03. This data reflects
Asheville's position as the regional economic center for Western North
Carolina.
9
•
C. Site Accessibility
The site is located adjacent to major roads and direct accessibility into all
portions of the site. A development's marketability is directly related to how
accessible it is to its residents/users. Further, if certain portions of the site are
inaccessible, the property loses value and limits the area of development.
5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts)
In preparing the master plan, the applicant considered a variety of constraints, including
impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. The applicant has avoided and minimized impacts
to wetlands to the greatest extent practicable and feasible while still accomplishing the
overall project purpose.
During design of the proposed master plan, the applicant considered development
alternatives, which included no impacts to the 0.27 acre wetland. Prior to the submittal of
this application, the applicant conducted meetings with regulatory agency personal
including the USACE, NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ), and NC Wildlife Resource
• Commission on November 30, 2004.
Because the wetland is located in the center of the site, it is already subject to an
increased in stormwater and litter. It is possible that this wetland area will continue to
decline and its important functions and values will become less effective.
5.5 Alternatives Conclusion
This discussion of alternatives, together with other documents submitted by the applicant
in support of its 404 Permit, shows that the project complies with the guidelines and
promotes public interest. As this analysis clearly demonstrates, the applicant's
development is designed to minimize impacts to the extent practicable by providing
stormwater management systems and suitable mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands.
•
10
0 6.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
This conceptual mitigation plan describes compensatory measures for unavoidable
permanent impacts to 0.27 acres of wetlands with the development of the River Bend
Business Park, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The mitigation plan is provided in support of River Bend Business Park, LLC permit
application and the mitigation measures are described below:
The applicant proposes to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program at a 1:1 ratio for
impacts to 0.70 acres of wetlands (0.41 acres in Phase I and 0.27 acres in Phase II). A
copy of the letter from EEP willing to accept payment into the mitigation fund is
attached.
6.1 Avoidance
The applicant's master plan for redevelopment of the former superfund is a high
density urban development. Given its urban location in Asheville and the
location's previous history as a superfund site, redevelopment is extremely
expensive and the applicant is trying to maximize their ability to provide an
economically viable project. The remaining 0.27 acre wetland is located adjacent
to the former Sayles-Bleachery ash disposal pile. To best meet the applicant's
project purpose this wetland cannot be avoided.
6.2 Minimization
Additional sedimentation and erosion control measures will be taken during the
grading and filling phases of the project. Best Management Practices (BMP) will be
employed to minimize the impacts to streams adjacent to the proposed development.
The BMP's that may be employed include siltation barriers, , sediment traps, and
sediment basins. Use of BMP's will be one of the most useful methods of
mitigation to minimize disturbance of natural stream/wetland functions. See Section
7.3.2 for additional information on Sediment and Erosion Control.
6.3 Mitigation
The applicant proposes to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program at a 1:1
ratio for impacts to 0.70 acres of wetlands (0.41 acres in Phase I and 0.27 acres in
Phase II). A copy of the letter from EEP willing to accept payment into the
mitigation fund is attached (Appendix B).
Prior to contacting the EEP, the applicant conducted a thorough review of off-site
wetland mitigation opportunities. This includes aerial, topo, soil, and cursory
pedestrian surveys of potential suitable sites for wetland restoration or preservation.
The study conducted in October and November of 2004, focused on the Swannanoa
River drainage between Asheville and Black Mountain.
11
Our review identified few suitable areas for wetland mitigation. Four potential
sites were identified during map research and reviewed in the field. Site 1 is a 10
acre tract adjacent to Wood Avenue just south of Tunnel Road. It is estimated
that the site has approximately 2-3 acres of wetlands. However, discussion with
representatives of the owners, Ballard family, this property is not for sale. Site 2
is located east of Asheville just north of Warren Wilson Road. The wetlands are
located adjacent to Beetree Creek and owned by the Anvil Corporation. After
further research it was discovered that these wetlands area adjacent to and part of
a wetland/pond system that extends onto the Chemtronics Property (Now owned
by Tandy Corporation). This is a former EPA Superfund Site with a well
documented history of groundwater contamination. After review of the USACE
FINAL Superfund Five Year Review Report, Chemtronics Site, Swannanoa, NC;
EPA ID: NCD095459392, this site was dropped from further consideration due to
potential liability concerns. Site 3 was identified from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service NWI maps as an approximately 6 acre wetland adjacent to the Swannanoa
River near Azalea Road. After a site inspection of the floodplain, CEC
determined that this area is an upland floodplain and not suitable for wetland
mitigation. Site 4 is located in Swannanoa and was identified as an agricultural
field with agricultural ditches apparently draining the lower floodplain property.
However, a site visit confirmed that, the site is now occupied by the Asheville
Christian Academy and is not available for wetland mitigation.
In addition to these sites, drive by evaluations of the entire Swannanoa floodplain
did not identify other suitable options for wetland restoration. It is our opinion
that contributing to the NC EEP will be the most effective means of mitigating
unavoidable impacts from the project.
•
12
7.0 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1)
GUIDELINES
7.1 Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines
EPA interim regulations providing guidance for specification of deposit on sites
for dredge and fill material were published on September 17, 1993, in 40 C.F.R.
230 per Section 404(b)l. Sub-Parts A through I pertain to dredge and fill permits,
and apply to project sites similar to this project.
Sub-Part D presents a summary of compliance criteria for the 404(b)l guidelines.
This section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a
Dredge & Fill Permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist.
Alternatives reviewed, detailed in Section 7.0, were assessed for compliance with
404(b)l guidelines.
Additional EPA guidance is presented related to general regulatory criteria,
wildlife value, and human health guidelines. The discharge of dredge and fill
material is considered permittable under these guidelines if the discharge activity:
does not contribute to violation of state water quality standards; does not violate
toxic effluent standards; does not jeopardize the continued existence of species
listed as T&E pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and
subsequent amendments; does not cause degradation to any marine sanctuaries;
does not contribute to significant degradation of "waters of the United States;"
does not adversely affect human health as pertains to water supply; does not
adversely impact wildlife, food chain, and special aquatic sites; does not
contribute to the discharge of pollutants that may affect the food web; does not
have negative effects on the productivity of the aquatic ecosystem, or their
physical values; and does not have adverse impacts on recreation, aesthetic or
economic values. Additionally, the applicant is required to minimize potential
adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
7.2 Factual Determination
The USACE is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term
effects of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical,
chemical, and biological components of an aquatic environment.
7.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem
Sub-Part C of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines lists six physical and chemical
characteristics that must be assessed during the permit review, and the effects of
which must be determined to be minimal on the aquatic ecosystem.
13
0 7.3.1 Substrate
The modification of the substrate to an aquatic ecosystem can cause
changes in water circulation, depth, drainage patterns, water fluctuations,
water temperature, and benthic organism changes. No impacts to on-site
streams are proposed. Proposed alterations to on-site wetland consist of
filling 0.27 acres and mitigated through contributions to the EEP. The
applicant proposes to impact less than 0.27 acres of wetlands but mitigate
for the total wetland impacts Phase I and II (approximately 0.71 acres).
The designed and engineered surface water management plan will
alleviate potential problems resulting from alteration in drainage or water
level fluctuation patterns. The design of the stormwater management
system is intended to protect the chemical and biotic integrity of the water
quality and quantity aspects of the regional aquatic ecosystem.
7.3.2 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion Control)
The discharge of dredge and fill material can increase the amount of
suspended particulates in the aquatic ecosystem. While such an increase in
the turbidity level can have a negative effect on microorganisms and
invertebrates, it is expected to be controlled and minimized by the project
design. Through the placement of silt screens, hay bales, vegetated filter
strips, or other turbidity barriers, utilizing Best Management Practices will
control and minimize suspended particulates that may exit the area of
disturbance. The proposed project will be constructed and managed in such
a way as to minimize the potential for elevated levels of suspended
particulates.
The State of North Carolina enacted the Sediment and Erosion Control
law as part of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. This law
requires that anyone disturbing more than one acre of land must submit an
erosion control plan and receive approval from the N.C. Division of Land
Quality. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the project area
and other disturbed areas greater than one acre was designed by
Wolverton & Associates. The erosion and sedimentation control plan will
be reviewed and approved by the Buncombe County Soil and Erosion
Control Officer. The purpose of the erosion control plan is to develop
measures that will contain erosion during storm events before it reaches
streams or leaves the site.
Finally, many of the erosion control measures such as sediment traps can
be designed to accommodate the 2-year storm based on the state's
regulations.
14

7.3.3 Water Quality
The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not cause
increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem.
Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition
to possible chemical contamination shall be minimized or reduced. All
discharges of dredge and fill material will be controlled with a
sedimentation and erosion control plan.
It is anticipated that all of the material needed to fill the site will be taken
from on-site areas. The fill material used on-site will be clear and free of
chemical contamination. Should additional fill material be required,
suitable off-site clean fill material will be purchased and transported to the
project.
E
7.3.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation
The discharged dredge and fill material shall not adversely modify current
water circulation patterns by obstructed flow, changing direction or
velocity of water, or change in the velocity or flow of circulation. The
proposed activity should minimize the alterations to the dynamics of the
aquatic ecosystem. Flow will be maintained in the affected wetland
through adequately sized culverts. Water velocity should be maintained
by approved stormwater management systems. No impacts to current
patterns in water circulation are anticipated.
7.3.5 Normal Water Fluctuations
Changes in water level fluctuations, promoting a static or non-fluctuating
ecosystem may produce negative environmental effects, potentially caused
by the discharge of dredge and fill material into aquatic systems. The on-
site wetland habitat will be removed. The proposed project includes a
surface water management plan that provides naturally fluctuating water
levels based on design criteria and should not have an effect to off-site
waters.
0
7.3.6 Salinity
The concern in regard to physical and chemical characteristics of an
aquatic ecosystem is related to the salinity gradient from saltwater into
freshwater. A discharge of dredge and fill material can alter the salinity
and mixing zone between salt and freshwater. Since the project is located
inland, and is not tidally influenced, no modification to the salinity of on-
site or adjacent waters is expected.
15
7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem
Sub-Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern from
which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of
the ecosystem. These components are T&E species; fish, crustaceans, mollusks,
and other aquatic organisms in the food web; and other wildlife.
7.4.1 Threatened or Endangered Species
Discharge of dredge and fill material may cause the potential loss of
valuable habitat to wildlife and plant species listed as T&E by the USFWS
through the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and its subsequent additions
and amendments (50 C.F.R. 17.11). The project is planned so that there
are no filling impacts to 14.88 acres of wetlands. No impacts to federally
listed species are expected as described in Section 3.2 above.
7.4.2 Fishes, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the
Food Web
Discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web by impacting
animals such as invertebrates that make up the basis of a food chain. The
release of contaminants or an increase in turbidity may have potential
negative effects on certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may
also potentially increase the levels of exotic species.
Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the
U.S./wetlands on the project should reasonably be expected to have
minimal to no effects on wetland and aquatic systems in the vicinity.
7.4.3 Other Wildlife
The discharge of dredge and fill material can have a negative effect on the
breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred
food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species.
A minimal loss of wildlife habitat for wetland-dependent species may
result from construction of the project, the proposed mitigation should
compensate for any minor loss of habitat.
7.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Sub-Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential
impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges;
wetlands; mud flats; vegetated shallows; coral reefs; and riffle and pool
complexes.
16
7.5.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges
The discharge of dredge and fill material may cause potential negative
effects on adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges through impacts to
water quality, loss of wildlife habitat, additional human access, creating
the need for frequent maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment
of undesirable plant and animal species, and change of balance of habitat
type. No impacts on sanctuaries or refuges resulting from the
development of the project are anticipated.
7.5.2 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material will have adverse effects on
wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation.
Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat,
flood storage, and groundwater recharge. To offset impacts to wetlands,
the applicant is mitigating by contributing to the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
7.5.3 Mud Flats
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have negative
impacts on mud flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine
systems. Since the project does not contain any mud flat communities,
loss of value to these ecosystems will not occur on-site.
7.5.4 Vegetated Shallows
Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that contain rooted
aquatic vegetation. This type of habitat generally exists within estuarine,
marine, and some freshwater lakes and rivers. No such permanently
inundated vegetated shallow habitats exist on the project; therefore, there
are no expected impacts to this type of ecosystem.
7.5.5 Coral Reefs
Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. No coral reefs exist
on the project; therefore, no impacts to this type of ecosystem will occur.
7.5.6 Riffle and Pool Complexes
Discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle and pool
complexes may potentially have a negative impact to water quality and
wildlife value. Riffle and pool ecosystems generally exist along steeper
gradients of streams and rivers, on and in the immediate vicinity of the
17
project. The impacted jurisdictional area does not contain riffle and pool
stream complexes.
7.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics
Sub-Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use
of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and
commercial fisheries, water-related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar
preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines. No effects on
human use characteristics can be anticipated from the proposed development of
the project.
7.6.1 Municipal and Private Water Supply
Significant discharges of dredge and fill material should not have a
negative impact on water quality serving as a water supply for
municipalities or private developments. There should be no affect to
municipal; or private drinking water supplies. Potable water is being
supplied to Phase II by the Asheville municipal water supply system.
7.6.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have a negative
effect on water quality. However, the connection to the Swannanoa River
is entirely culverted. There is no recreational or commercial fishery
associated with the proposed impact area. Phase I riparian buffers
(approximately 13 acres) were established to assist in the long-term
protection and viability of the Swannanoa River.
7.6.3 Water-Related Recreation
A discharge of dredge and fill material may have a negative effect on
water-related recreation by impairing or destroying water resources that
support recreational activities. Development of the project is not expected
to have negative impacts on water-related recreation activities as the
privately owned 0.27 acre wetland has not provided recreational uses in
the past.
7.6.4 Aesthetics
The discharge of dredge and fill materials into wetland ecosystems may
adversely impact the aesthetic value of natural aquatic ecosystems. The
project has been planned to eliminate impacts to the on-site wetlands and
primary streams. Payment is being proposed the EEP to restore and
protect wetlands in the French Broad River Basin.
18
0 7.6.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores,
Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves
No areas as described above will be affected by the proposed development
of the project.
7.7 Summary
Based on the EPA guidelines identified within 40 C.F.R. 230, and enumerated
herein, a number of potential environmental impacts have been presented and
subsequently addressed. The proposed permanent impact to 0.27 acres of
wetlands will not cause any off-site adverse impacts. Mitigation provided should
more than compensate for any on-site impacts.
•
19
• 8.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contrary to the public
interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed
in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below.
8.1 Conservation
The redevelopment of the former superfund site does include an on-site
conservation of natural resources. The applicant has set aside approximately 13
acres of riparian buffers along the Swannanoa River. In addition, contribution into
the NC EEP will allow appropriate mitigation of wetland resources in the French
Broad River Basin. The EEP mitigation is planned to be a comprehensive
watershed approach that maximizes the protection and enhancement of wetlands
and waters of the US.
8.2 Economics
River Bend Village overall is expected to employ several hundred people, and to
have a significant economic positive impact on the property tax base for Buncombe
County as well as a positive impact on the local retail industry. Municipal
sewer/water extensions are being paid for privately for this project and the roads
within the project site will be privately owned and maintained.
8.3 Aesthetics
The project has been carefully planned by the project developers and reviewed by
the City of Asheville to minimize impacts to the aesthetics of the area. The high-
density nature of the project is consistent with the urban development of the
adjacent land owners.
8.4 General Environmental Concerns
Other than wetland impacts, proposed urban development activities on the project
site would have no significant identifiable impacts upon other environmental
components due to the nearly century long use of this property as heavy industrial.
8.5 Wetlands
Development of the project will impact 0.27 acres of on-site wetlands. Payment
into the NC EEP for impacts to .70 acres (Phase I and Phase II) of wetlands should
off-set these impacts.
20
0 8.6 Historic Properties
The Sayles-Bleachery was documented in the Historic Architectural Resources of
Downtown Asheville prior to its demolition in 2003. There were no known
structures on the Phase II portion of the project.
8.7 Fish and Wildlife Values
The project is a high-density urban redevelopment project on a former Superfund
site. As this site has been thoroughly developed and managed for nearly 90 years
there has been minimal fish and wildlife values on the project site. Phase I of the
development has provided for a substantial, 13 acre riparian buffer along the
Swannanoa River.
8.8 Flood Hazards
Phase II is within Zone X, outside of the 100 year floodplain (Federal Insurance
Rate Maps, Community Panel Number 37021C 0309, effective date May 1996).
This area is located directly in the Back of the existing PetSmart store. The
applicant does not propose any impacts to wetlands or streams within the 100-
year floodplain.
8.9 Floodplain Values
The wetland is located at the base of steep topography on the northern portion of
Phase II. The applicant does not propose any impacts to wetlands or streams
within the 100-year floodplain. There is some floodplain associated with the
Swannanoa River in Phase I. However, Phase I of the development has provided
for a substantial, 13 acre riparian buffer along the Swannanoa River.
8.10 Land Use
The proposed project is consistent with the existing land uses and zoning for the
property and surrounding area.
8.11 Navigation
No navigable waters exist on site. The proposed project will not effect navigation.
8.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion
An erosion control plan will be implemented as part of the construction plan for the
project (See Section 7.3.2 above). During the construction process, Best
Management Practices will be followed. These BMP's will include the
construction of swales, erosion and sediment control structures, turbidity barriers,
and other measures that will prevent sediment transport off the project into other
21
waters. Use of devices such as silt screens, staked hay bales, temporary grassing,
wind rowing of vegetation, and other mechanisms to prevent turbidity will be
employed.
8.13 Recreation
Phase I of the redevelopment provides 13.5acres of river front park as a community
greemvay and river buffer. Developers have constructed a paved pedestrian
walking path along the river throughout the park, as well as artistic and historic
exhibit features Public access is allowed and encouraged along this corridor which
will eventually connect with other segments of the City of Asheville's River Front
project. This is the first and currently the only such project on the Swannanoa
River.
8.14 Water Supply and Conservation
Potable water will be provided to the project by the municipal water service.
8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
No short term or long term adverse water quality impacts are anticipated. BMP's
will be incorporated during construction. Stream buffers are being provided to
assure long-term stream protection and integrity.
A stormwater management plan will be designed by Day Engineering and
Associates to satisfy the future stormwater management needs of the proposed
development. Although this plan is not finalized, the draft plan includes the use
of several stormwater management techniques that will direct stormwater into
biofilters or wet ponds from the impervious area associated with the development.
Stormwater from the development will be directed to flow through permanent
stormwater management facilities in the approved plan. No direct discharge of
stormwater to streams is designed for the project.
The stormwater management facilities will be designed to meet the guidelines set
forth in the Stormwater Best Management Practices, NCDENR 1999 and is
required for certain areas by the 401 Water Quality Certification. Biofilters are
designed and configured to provide significant removal of suspended solids,
nutrients, and pollutants from incoming stormwater. Design parameter includes
the provision of sufficient surface area to promote settling of potential pollutants.
The stormwater biofilters are designed for a target sediment removal rate at or
above 85%.
The stormwater management plan will be approved by NCDWQ prior to impacts
to streams. Stormwater management is a requirement under the 401 Water
Quality Certification and may require periodic maintenance to meet stormwater
plan requirements.
22

8.16 Energy Needs
There are no known sources of materials on the project that could be used to
generate energy, nor will the project contribute to any other energy production. It is
expected that Duke Power will supply the electrical energy needed for
development.
8.17 Safety
The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible considerations
for public safety. This includes approximately 7 miles of sidewalks associated with
Phase I and II as well as all road and speeds designed to meet NC DOT standards.
8.18 Food and Fiber Production
The project site is not utilized for food production or silvicultural activities. This
site is the former location of the Sayles-Bleachery and was used as a heavy
industrial site from 1925 to the 1990's.
8.19 Mineral Needs
The project fulfills no current mineral needs. No mining activities are planned as
part of this development.
8.20 Considerations of Property Ownership
The proposed development of the project will not in any ways hinder surrounding
private property owners from enjoying, managing, or developing their properties in
any legal fashion they may choose consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
The address of the project property owner is as follows:
Owner: River Bend Business Park, LLC.
Contact: Harley Dunn
PO Box 528
Asheville, NC 28802-0528
[phone]
[phone]Fax
8.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public
The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by providing
recreational and residential facilities in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
•
23
9.0 SUMMARY
The Phase II redevelopment of the Sayles-Bleachery is planned to be accomplished in
phases that will take at least three years to complete. The applicant proposes all
compensatory mitigation prior to or concurrent with remaining redevelopment activities.
E
0
24
ii -? t ,?f; r ?r'. A'!!i? 1. s.N
j?22CC
_ / 1 11 t ? t:' ? ?
,
?i r :1 t .4.?0 ? rr ?
r t
! ?'' -. T r t1 ,`.. '>r 1'. ?? t f '4t ,,A (. r L ??i 4 _ \ "• .yv
I I c ' ? 1
o.
t _l
?u .a..-?.vw .. 111
CLEARWATER
River Bend Business Park Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Buncombe County, 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Vicinity Map
Hendersonville, NC 28792 Figure 1
North Carolina
828-698-9800

a G&L

-
r
n
? L 1 t?

? `'-r .• ? ? .` ? '?, :fit

r
r
Proposed Wetland Impact
0.27 acres

terstate 240
In

CLEARWATER
RIVER BEND BUSINESS PARK Environmental Consultants, Inc. WETLAND IMPACT MAP
PHASE II 224 South Grove Street, Suite F FIGURE 2
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C. Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
Rlver Bend Asheville Quadrangle 01/11/05 Flgure 1
W U2131.000' W
t \ J
z ;
o
0
0
(n w1
ZOO
•vJ; M ?i????T
m M.,
Y'. ?-? r >fT J ? ??
92130.000' W WGS84 82°29.000' W
? E(i
?-t

- Proiect

z

.ri t: t ,II
82030.000'W WGSaa R:1-79 Min' W
,?., i ?y ?,tir• 8 ? t T?
f?c i ,< t
82°32.000' W 82-31.boo, w
r?
1 •• + C
1 t 7y* I i
z
0
0
a
P
m
z
7
n
r
i
i
Q s twu
146, Lv10001EET 0 500 two METH
CLEARWATM
River Bend Business Park Environmental Consultants, Inc. USGS Topographic Map
Buncombe County 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Figure 3
North Carolina Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800
•
NEW PIPE
PROPOSED FILL
Wetlands TYPICAL SECTION
N.T.S.
EXIST. GROUND
Figure 4
0
Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
For
Riverbend Marketplace
Buncombe County, North Carolina
August 8, 2003
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report details methods used and an assessment of survey results for a
threatened and endangered (T&E) species survey and habitat assessment for the
approximately 79-acre Riverbend Marketplace project. The T&E species survey was
conducted to determine the occurrence of or the potential for animal and plant species listed
as federally threatened or endangered to exist on the proposed site. Completion of this
survey was directed by and complies with current state and federal regulations [Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543) and the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect. 113 article 25) and North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979 (N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12-22)].
The referenced site is bordered by the Swannanoa River to the north and Interstate-240 to
the south, in Buncombe County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Access to the site is available
from Swannanoa River Road (N.C. Route 81) on the northern border of the site.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
•
A preliminary protected species survey was conducted Junel7, 2003, on the proposed site
by C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. to determine potential for occurrences of
animal and plant species listed as endangered or threatened by current Federal regulations.
Recent correspondence solicited from the USFWS database provided existing data
concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened or endangered species in
Buncombe County, North Carolina. The USFWS lists the following twelve Federally
threatened and endangered species as occurring or potentially occurring in Buncombe
County. The species listed below were included in the surveys and assessment.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bo turtle Clem Ws muhlenbur 'i Threatened*
Eastern cougar Felis concolor cougar Endangered
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucom s sabrinus coloratus Endangered
S tfin chub H bo sis monacha Threatened
Gray bat M otis isencens Endangered
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonata raveneliana Endangered
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
•
Oyster mussel E ioblasma ca sae ormis Endangered
Bunched arrowhead Sa ittaria asiculata Endangered
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenidjonesii Endangered
Virginia s irea S iraea vir 'niana Threatened
Rock gnome lichen G mnoderma lineare Endangered
*Threatened due to similarity of appearance with northern bog turtle
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program database was also reviewed and provided existing data
concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened and endangered species in
Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey by C1earWater
Environmental Consultants staff. During field surveys, site habitats were identified and
compared with recognized habitats for each of the twelve species potentially occurring on
the site. Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Due to the disturbed
condition of most of the site (Sayles-Biltmore Bleacheries mill), evidence of past
silvicultural practices on the eastern portion of the site, and a general lack of suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that any protected species exist on the property.
3.0 CONCLUSION
During completion of threatened and endangered species habitat assessments for the
Riverbend Marketplace, no listed species were observed. It is the opinion of ClearWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally and state protected species are not likely to
be present within the site. As such, development of the proposed 79-acre Riverbend
Marketplace is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any threatened or endangered
species.
Although no threatened and endangered species were identified during this survey,
because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and endangered species
and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible that endangered
species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any potential
findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with appropriate
agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
•
2
•
wKibil
i
•

:' JlJ
- •' `` ,,??,, it iF it
;i
t

e3012o01F1g .,.nm G3
i
i'
i
i

ol9gc<J
?Soluttonse
Horne Properties, Inc.
Riverbend Marketplace
Site Location Map
r7
Beverly HI
2?
Approximate
Site Bounda y
"MJncipel
Golf Course
(rS 81
r 1
%
0.Z% !.•
% r•: r•? inc.
1 r•.r• r•. .r;. •r•N :r•.I:
ell,
%
August 2003
N.T.S.
83012-001
Figure 1
•
Y
cos stem
Etlai eme
PROGRAM
November 17, 2004
Clement Riddle
Clear Water Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Subject: Project: Riverbend Marketplace
County: Buncombe
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for riparian wetland impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that the decision
by the NCEEP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be approved by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of
the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP for impacts associated with this project is
appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. 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
forward copies of the 404 Permit/401 Certification to Ecosystem Enhancement Program in order for an invoice to be
. generated.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated November 15, 2004, the wetlands restoration that is necessary
to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The maximum
amount of mitigation that the NCEEP will accept for this vroiect is also indicated in this table.
Stream
linear feet Riparian Wetlands
acres Riparian Buffer
(ftZ
Impacts 0.70
Mitigation Maximum 1.40
The riparian wetlands mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Section 404
Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 06010105 of the French Broad Fear River Basin.
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of Transportation
signed July 22, 2003.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
James B. Stanfill
Strategic Planning Supervisor
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
David Baker, USACOE-Asheville
Kevin Barnett, DWQ Regional Office-Asheville
File AA
R-UtOYlGt?... F ... Pro t"' Our State 06ENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 / 919-733-5208 / www.nceep.net
DWQ# G S % o L- 33 Date Who Reviewed: 1 Y ? ?``^
Plan Detail Incomplete
? Please provide a location map for the project.
? Please show all stream impacts including all fill slopes, dissipaters, and bank stabilization on the site plan.
? Please show all wetland impacts including fill slopes -on the site plan.
[] Please indicate all buffer impacts on the site plan.
? Please indicate proposed lot layout as overlays on the site plan.
? Please indicate the location of the protected buffers as overlays on the site plan.
? Please locate all isolated or non-isolated wetlands, streams and other waters of the State as overlays on the site plan.
- ? Please provide cross section details showing the provisions for aquatic life passage. --- - - - - - - -- -
? Please locate any planned sewer lines on the site plan.
? Please provide the location of any proposed stormwater.management practices as required by GC
Please provide detail for the stormwater management practices as required by Qe
® Please specify the percent of project imperviousness area based on the estimated built-out conditions.
? Please indicate all stormwater outfalls on the site plan.
? Please indicate the diffuse flow provision measures on the site plan.
? Please indicate whether or not the proposed impacts already been conducted.

Avoidance and/or Minimization Not Provided "
? The labeled as on .the plans does not appear to be necessary. Please eliminate the dr provide additional
information as to why it is necessary for this project.
? This Office believes that the labeled on the plans as can be moved or reconfigured to avoid the impacts to the
Please revise the plans to avoid the impacts.
? This Office believes that the labeled on the plans as can be moved or reconfigured to minimize the impacts to the
Please revise the plans to minimise the impacts.
? The stomiwater discharges at the location on the plans labeled will not provide diffuse flow through the buffer because
. Please revise the plans and provide calculations to show that diffuse flow will be achieved through the entire buffer, If it
is not possible to achieve diffuse flow through the entire buffer then it may be necessary to provide stormwater management
practices that remove nutrients before the stormwater can be discharged through the buffer.
Other
? The application fee was insufficient because over 150 feet of stream and/or over 1 acre of wetland impacts were requested. Please
provide $ . This additional fee must be received before your application can be reviewed.
? Please complete Section(s) on the application.
? Please provide a signed copy of the application.
leas rove s of the application, copies of the site plans and other supporting information.
tion
? of compensatory mitigation is required for this project. -Please provide a compensatory mitigation plan. The
plan must conform to the requirements in 15 A NCAC 2H.0500 and must be appropriate to the type of impacts proposed.
? Please indicate which 404 Permit the USACE would use to authorize this project.
1tCJ'

K4e,
WAUQNG PATH TO RIVER . ' RIDGE APARTMENTS PIN 9658.19-72-0023 023 BUFFER REDUI2D 1915' e' MOOD FENCE MAT 6 751<
-EASY ACCESS PROP LTD LTD ~ MDIN MIH FENCE ~ R OPAQUE M1N iNE FN~D SEIE FAgl6
D.B. 1193, P. 577 ~r . m 11E IIBU11116 PROPERTY.
8' IIGN HOOD F61CE TWIT Ni 751; P.B. 49, P. 22 OPAOUE WIH TIN: F119ED SIDE FACIIO , <;>:y ZONED: RM 18 N r'
THE ABIITINIO PROPERTY. BEER EDUCED ~ 15 INERCAIIi1lE SPACE AT GROUND IEVEI. LAND USE: HIGH DENSItY RESIDENT w 1NDIH NIRI FENCE WITH TWO TO THREE 1E11E1S OF ENSTIY RESTDENML ~ u; ~ N S' PUIIAIl6 S1RP MBN 1AEES IMD /OR .22 530'08 24"E SINiVBS AT 8' oc. IAfAEO BE119DI 11E
5 PUWING S1RP KITH TNfES AND /OR gERCANTLE SPACE AT GROUND LEVEI ~ 74.88' AT GROUND LEVEL '45"E S FEIiCE 1VD PROPBRIY UNE ~g53 24 ~~ZZ
SHil~S AT ~ o.c. U1CAlED BEP11ET71 THE RESIDENNIL SPACE ABOVE UIDERGROUIID GARAGE UNDER - WITH TWO TO THREE LEVEIS OF E LEVELS OF QPEN' AREA 102.9 , 80 THREE STORY NOUS~NG ~
MERCANTILE SPACE AT GROIND IEVEI FENCE ~ PROPERLY UINfS IZESIOENIIALL SPACE ABOVE IENGGIII OF All, BUILDINGS 80 THREE STOR1f ABOYE ~ 3 - 48'E 131.
WIiII TWO TO THiZfE IEVELS ~ , S35'19'18`E 796.54 RESIDENTIAL SPACE ABOVE - ~
~ h h;; ~i ~ 1
PIN 9858.15-52-8802 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
HORNE DEVELOPMENT / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RIVER BEND, LLC ~ ~ ~ , . ~9 z ?oa.
D.B. 3483, P. 518 7
ZONED: RNER / - - - ' - ~ USE: RICH IMPACT USE / r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAND ~
RETAN. SHIES ~ J ~ ~ ~ p / / \ \
O'
1 y ~ OPEN AREA
/ \ / ~ aN8 T ~
It' CuAe
~ \ / \ ~ mac. ~ / \
5 PINIIEO ~ / \ / \ / ~ , ~ \ / _ \ / \y ~l
~ 0 ~o
4
/ s~, 4 o• / ~ Z ~ ~ Two STORY COMMUNITY
/ \ / ~ "s ~ / L s ~ BUILDING POOL i -;:t f r
.1.,
uh
\ CUIB
/ \ \ \ ~ , 2 ~ 1' CUNT / \ \J ~ s = , ter:. 22' 1~ s:' ~
/ 0 22'-0' / 5:t ; r ~ ,p~ 3 x :4- G e'
' ~ ' ~ _'1 ; d• ~
/ \ ~ \ \I C9 ~ , ~ f€ "B(f,^ f'~` : . ~ FACE of $ ~ . Of 4'~~ . ~ 1G F 1!lMDlifi
\ W c ;1''.:... Y 1MY i ~ . ~ ~ ,fix; Hr " ` a%"'"a:, s
\ \ \ ~ ~ n ~ r,:,,,.>, xr cB~s: ^ y~r ~ s~:,a3 ~zs r as ,;y, g: M
\ J \ ~ ~ ~ ~ BUILDI G OUR 3. BUILDING I THREE,,:,,;, ;a ~ 5 PUNtED BUFFER
f ' ~
I, . ~ ~y y. ~ ~ E ~
~ S~ Y \ \ ~ £l ~ ` ~ i:. ss w ,y 'n'hf { ? f.
~ ~ y r ~ FACE (v~
_ ~ _ g / I '£i ~ O
\ b ~d• K ~ ~
J / ~ ~ ~ ~ / - ~ e~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
\ I ~ ,ri . ~ ~ p a ~P
.P !r"' / / . „
J l~ a ~ I
~ I 0 ~ I ~ / /
,lI ~ _ ~J p PIN 9658.19-81 7 MOINdfAN PROPERTY
/ ~ - ~ Aa~oININC ~ ~ ; d •L~WL~yy~ W/~ P
r ~I ~ ~ ~ '`"~1. ~DEwALK o .l j ~ ~ ~ i ~
s R x. ~ r ~ y / , o ~ ~ A R ~ >,.\i • eu
A ~ / 6 ~ - { hC F ~ r
N ae h
r 24 Yr-a'
~ ~ to FACE ~ aye \ ' N
of e~oc ~ ~,r, z l A y; , S
~ x34 5 a~ES h 3/ ~y~~i4 sy 9 " a a a;
~ ti II~ ::,,Y, ~ ~ y'> +453' G CHORD BEARING=N04 59 47 SgEINAIJ( ~ £f BUI bIN ONE ' HG f
B I ING TWO CHORD DISTAJJCE=33.75 1R~ x , ' ~ 5 _ . STAEET Y I F; 1
L=33.76 ~ t M 9i; f ~j~~.n I I y
R=480.00 ~ kk yy APPRO)OMATE 22000 $QlV1TiE 5 ( h.. ~ I ~ ;
t. k OUTpARCEE SPACE WITH PRNATE ~ _ - k _ _ n
PARKING TO BE OEIIELOPED Br OTHERS " • e' ~ ~a Mc
w S' PUNRD BUFFER
BUS STOP AID BUS SHELTER 1 -,1 .
a LANDSCAPE LEGEND: b '
cy I~p . • . ADJOMil6 F,Q e ! ^g, s'
Y S~EwKK ® r'
GREATER TIWI THR1Y FAE (3~ FIEf AT ILATINtl'TY. INIrNNI B " eu~ V BRIEFER Q _
PLAN1MiG SHALL eE TIIIO 2 TNaIES CALIPER rrnll A STR~r TTN~x © t, SIZE AT O D , ~ TNRIVE (1~ TO PDURIED~1 (14) fOGT IIEION~ ~ BUFFER 00'231N 231.59'
APPROXWATE 6501 a ~ 1'
SPACE '~'1 OUIPAR(~l - ~~~39"W W
PAR;grG TO BE 0 N OA>HfRS N .11E TRH STNAIlER 111A11 THNICIY FNE (3S) FEET AT Tii11lJAIIY 5 hIAN~ BUFifJI T
sHALl NTE a LEAST 1-1/4• CALIPER ANC EJp~T (e) TO TT]I s PLMITFD ~
(TO) FEET wcN AT TILE OF PLANTTMGr f°s NOTE.,. A 45 FT. R.O.W. SHALL BE PROVIDED
\ ~ ALONG ALL PUBLIC STREETS.
alNarRIM I~IIT of sac (q FEET AT TIME of PLANnNC. I~RGM~LE SPI4CE AT GROUND LEVEI.
\ SPACE AT GROUND LEVEI MERCANfIF L 111H 11N0 TO TNREE LEVELS OF
STREET TREE do PW~TING STRIP REQU MEND WfTII TIrO TO TITIiEE lE1lELS OF ~ U~FRGROUHD GARAGE UNDER ~oai~ sP~cE ABOVE (V
~ RESIOEIAYIL SPACE ABOVE ~ rrNNMUI~ TNRN>: (3) cAUAN oartAN1ER aR TEN (10) wcN PRO~RTY uNE IINIST NORTH saTTH LENGTH of Au BuILaNCS - - - ~
ROOT eAlt wlrH A NENaIr of TNTIartY PouR (24) TNCNES a FREE D 5' PLANTNrG S' PLANiTNG STREET TNIE OF PLANIMGi. pESCRNP'TpN OF BUFFTIt BUFFER CENTER PONT OF PUBLIC C
R BUFFER BUFFER FOI1NUlN AT
PROMNADE AND OUTDOOR GATHERBIG
3 QALiGN ~ ~ 1 ~ LENGTH OF PROPERTY LNE 1516 320 1321 3,564 T~INNMUM THRETe (o) AREA FOR VLLACE O NTi00T BALL WITH A HETGIIT GF EIOHTEEII (Te) NNales AT 11wE ~ ,
DECIDUOUS TREES I TREE/40 L.F.) 8 38 1~8 ~ OF PIANTNrG. ~ ~ x1 F
SHRUBS S SHRUBS/40 L.F.) 0 1 Nf6 , ( »1NI6 40 ~ 0 25 50 100 ~
• TO PROXIMRY AND SIZE OF PARKING b 1KE ~fTltt DUE A lIUIB ~ SHt~S SHALL BE PRONpED NN THE STREET lMR ~
, PER EVERY FNE FEET OF VEF~IRIIR USE NA1Nt A ~ IrL F~JGHf ~ ~ SCALE: 1 = 50 AT MATURIf1f. i
» REDUCED D BUF~R SINLL HAVE TR wE IEINt1E TiE
AND IIBURNJ6 PROP811Y LME SPACED NO F O.C. THE
PROPERTY LME.
\ ~
& BUFFER TREE NOT ~ ~
ATO AT,,
N 0 ~ P111NTNiG. i ~ MNIT
~ ~ oR TN aROUIS. IrR TRTOES, T eplNNw~~ ~
aauNO 1` \ ~ aoNRlluollB ~ sway ILAY NCLIJDE (Now r \
NoRelaw REC ortlc _„r:~.~.~-- , I .,i.u..u :
~ IN _ CoC/ w aaNENI \ L~ ~t~.

~ ,
tNU nnHO i to r
I . .

i
r ~ ; ; , ~ , , tr ~ i i , ~ ~ .~S''~ \ .ice . ; ~ . ` ~ ~ y~ r
,r ~ ` i/ . ~ _ ~ ~ - . w - ~ ~ :
1 ' / t ~ i ,i ° , ~ , t ~ 1 ~ r t ' j M , 1~ i t L ~ S 'v., A V\\~' ? ~ n ~ . A ` ~`~A V ? / l ! f / t / / ~ r l i ~ 1 ~ `I ~ ; 1 A A,~~~_ 4_~~ ~i , ~ . t , ,A . \,•~•,A ~ V'ii` .S.ri , ~A`:~ V ~ \t~, A,. A" ~ \ .A\V\ A \A'~ - ~ -
, , e ' ~ r , , r / '1` is .,r' r \ . r r •a `r~`` d.~', ~ - V•rr_ -
r ' ~ ' - , ~ r ~ - ~ r r _ , . t e - W?~ \ ~ ~ti j i ,
i i , , ; - , ~ r n _ ~
; - _ ; - i 1 z : E~ V
f r i ! /~,J. A A - t to ~~.1,A^ , ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 11 ! ~ I i ~ ( 4 t ~ { ? I / / 1 t F ~ ~ - A'C ~ .7~~, ~\~'~p.~~ ~,A ' V ''A ~ ~ \ \ ~ A ~ A A'•
-Ati :r 7 ~ c } l ~ A ; V if / ~ / n ~ • ~ 1 V ~ ; ~.'~'~~>V ~ ti\ ~~'t ~'V` t t s. A V \ _J ~ ' r ' ~ ~ -
~.'J ? ~ ~ ~ i t ~ \ ~ ' \ ~ r ~ ? / ~ ~ .+i~' ~ , a ~ -fit. ~ , ~ ~f1. ~ ~ a
_ , ~ _ , f r \ \ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ , .~.y"1" . -r _ . - _ _
~ , , Via'\~ 1~ .M1 - ~ ~
` ~ _ , _ _ -ti , - \ ..i iii. - Y v`,` O ~ _ ~ o
~ _ . - _ 1-- . _ ~ vim"' ~1 '_=.1---~ ~ ~ ~"--L~ ' - i 1 3 - - - - , ~ ~ 1 . , v . . a ~ r - - ~t
\ :1 ti ~ ~`T j . \ _ ~ i ~ ~ . ~ _ - ~1 win . ~ r . \M ~~1 E ' ' O• .i 1, ~ ~ .y.~- y _ ._...-4---........- N- - ~ ~
. a. r - 1 - i - r - ~ . ° - 4? 1 14. - ~ r m_ J ~ t ! ..v.. 0
-.-ry .y . - . ti . , t~ '~+..M \ ,tom." 1 w \ - _ `-'m,~ - , t ~ - .v - ~ _ _ ~ . ~ 0
' _ ` y - _ t
_ \ ' ~ ~ ~-'`1-.~" '$"Vee..r""" '~,~;x~~t~,h~".a.'''~+a,.sT-s- ~,..°..:,a~~ .~aa~...~*..a C~.yrM.7,~,~.=-''.'`-+•~~~s; ~ - - - - - , r
_ ~ y . - - ~ ~ _ ~ ___...-.___-T-.' -----s= , _ ; ~ , i J.r ~ 1, ~_r,.... w - _ - a v . _ 00
ms - r ~ z _
\ ~ \ ~u _ - - ~ Jew - _ _ 4 ~ O eQ K
f ~~~~`rri,e-t'- \ ~ ,r; _ V,+n r, ^~r r~ ` " y, ~ ,---t-"` ~...---.~----_'.-`T- ' 1 ~ r ~ Z , ~ - w z
/ ~ a ~ e , .9 04
t ~ r^~.,.....f--- ~y ; rz._ - , . a
_ _ - EN~INEERS'~~QR ~~~I,.S-" _ ,+:~.~~'c l~.'•. \ 'll .1..,.~ v\\\\ ._.^.~a..-~ ---"-`fir J / ' ..y n ~ \ - , - a a ~ o
- _ ~~`P~B~I~ Ra~. - aoo~~ l `Z - _ A _ , , , ~ r r \ \ \ ~T,,.._.--- ~ ~ r ~ i _i -.vim-..,- _ ~y _ walla i ~ ~ ~.,~-....y.--. .v -
i ` \ i / ' .X \ - _ _ - _
.i..,~ .-yr-.---- L`tV Tl1 ~Abl~ VF~ `,~E- ~ J. 7 ~ . Q 3
-a... r - _ . _ _ _ , _ ~ ~ ~ - . - ii
at. 1i N „ `i"' .,wit ?v .~-~-'^:c'"G`_;~"'--e / _ _ ,~yhr?x-.~- ~ - ' r ~ ~ - -ir / - _ - - a _ w Y M ~ :3 ' ' - ~ ~ _ _ _ w = _ O O
, - a. . ~ _r ~ t~' Cam` ~A _ _ _ R _ - - v ~ . • ,`w~\ ~ n. _ _ _ ~.~:~yy,Y~•=L'""'r°+a~y,L"Y'Y_+c+4A..?'Y-u":. ~v`,"1LT^.. r'.-t-.G'".sx~~+-r ssFV_V'Y _ _ _ ly ~ a . . x 0.
_ ti, 1 / ,`4 / 4._._~ Via'": .l _ - _ - - ~ ~1 , , ' ,
_ e,, _ ~~~p y ~p~ _ ~ . - 1-._..
_ 7 @D`sflt~itr~ PEE • i r
- T.+?f~ , - ; ! . . _
~ ,:..-a_ ~ ;x= ~ TU~.~ REFS " ..~i . ` _ -z-
is Y,-- z .....-r Y ~ , ~ _ Y _ ; . _ , y-
a ..a..-- _ ..r - - ..~y- - r ~ Y a. , ~ ~ £~6SAt!Y; :F2r 1~. 7Q Nl;Nf' , _ _ _
r _ r - . . - ESf~T]HCr t2 P.~E-
- s. - - = --i - C~NTBA SF(~tL~ LfN~ FFiE _ ~ara r`"""'"...` - = = - - ~ t1P"ZFIEEXFSTI~G PA1~- - - , ` i _ _w. r ~ _ . .::.'fix `
_ - - as a _ - _ - . - _ i ~ - _ _ i . ~
' "T _ - - .
f , ~ -
fy~ _ f i- ~ ..ice Y-~ . ~ r mil' i i ~ _ ~~i-. ~ "Y_r.---,:~ ""%s ~ - ' l" - /
1' _ _ ' ~ ..r .r _ ~i . . - - r r ! '
I f .r . - - _ ~ 1 _ _ _ ~ - ~T !,r _
_ _ - - a _ _ o / ory ~ ti ~ . ' . _ ' .
- - - . _ f _ _ ' q~ ~ ~ ~
_ , , - CONTRRCTOR ~HALL-EXTENQ' ~ - ~ ~ - ~y~e F ti W , _ , _ -
` c~ass~ ~a.ana ovE~ r~ - - - - . _ _ _ f,., ~ - , \ _ _ _ - - ~rsnNC tiN~a ~c~ e _ ` , " ~ =ti~ . . . _ _ . o' ~ ~
• , . . y...1\ \ 'e ~ ^ ~ - ~ " -
a i . ~ 6 ' . _ . ,
~ ~ \ _ , ~ 1 . \ ` , \ _ > _ 0 803 , . 11 • Q
. \ _ ~ ~ ~ - , ~ \ ~ \ tr ~
• , , . - = ~ ' , . TRUac rr¢~ ~lVE~
i r ~ fF . - ~ . _ - ,..t , ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ c; ~ ~ INLET tu~~~~~, . . c ,
i - . ' ; is " ! % . / . ' ~ - _ o \ ' ; ` - . . , , , , ~ _ .C _ ~ , . 16 - EL 2025.96) ~ _ ~F~'~
ti4~i„ R , r _ - ~ yam' ~ _ ~ _ -.ten - - , ' • _ I . _ _ ~ F . RQO~ DOWNDRAIN. SEE I
id~^.. " - - r• Y v r - . - ,.may ` X . . ~ ' ARCH. PLUA~IBING PL4NS , . - ~ \ . "r".:
_ _ , _ ry _ - ' ' EXAIET LOEAAON , . , , FOR _ - ^ \ AND SIZE. ~T'(P.} ~ . . . - M _ , l ,
F ..ySJ \ y AA~ ' _ ~"~f . • ri- \ ~ _ -
_ ; , ~ _ , ; . ~ ,t _ ~i L ~ %1' ti Q , 2 2t3
~ J ~ h . , ~ t~" ~ • ~ ~ , ~ err. i -
p`' i s i i - m r ' . ,r f . , _ „ r ~ •y , \ \ \ r . \ ~ [i` ~ : i ' , . ~ '
y.\ 1 r, , !1 ~ \ y ,
, ~ , ! , s~ - . , -
140 ~ 1 'L H~~' ..{r. r 1V - _ , ~ ' ~ r ! ~ r. - ~ ~ ~ . ' i ~0. - ~..:N ..tip
ff~ 1 t, • , _ " _ ~ - _ ' ti ~ ~
~ ,1~~~ . _ ; - r- l , , . 1 t f i
uf.. b i i. } - - _ ~ ' ~ t. N
~'1 rr' _ - 1 \ _ 1 . ! \ ~ ' ! \ . ,1`
- _
- t ~ t M ~ ~ l~ _ t ~Y \.:r ~`i -rte i • y.:,"".., \
~W i:~ = . , i'. _ M1 - \ ' - li ~'1 / ' : - ` . r
I I _ - _ _ , /j _ _ . e 23 _ _ I ~ t ~ _
.n . _ _ r~9 . . _ I- _ - - _ - - E' i EXiSTiNG'wETLAND AND ~ ,
, ~ . - _ . r _ ; - _ , ~ , = • 'STREAM N THIS-AREA I
, , „ ~ - • , ~ E .PRESERVED ENO . y is ' ~ . - - ~ _ = - , , . , ' . r ~ t~ . - u r ; - ~ < 1 ` ~.i P . ` , ; : : ; , : ; { ROTEGTEO Dt~RIN6 ~ : . _ ' -
r?~~ l - ~ , , . I - - - - - , , . . ~ s - E a , ~ lV ' ~ r~ ,t
i ~ i r ' . . . `
~ i ? p . ~ ~ < , r o- ...w- r w ~ . _ _ : \ : , . ,
r I. - - - , M , . _ , _ ~ , , . I
4 ~ , - - ( . ~ \ . . ~ N ,.:,-1 - - , _ _ . , ~ - _ . . w , _ a _ ,
^ , . adj. - , , - . . - - , _ w , r _ ~ - -
r , . 'f ~ , _ , ' , - i - , , _ , ,
~
_ _ _ . li _ < _ j f i
r,. ; ~ , . . 1 . i - Y ~ , , ` e _ : , ,
_ ~ _ . , i ; , - , . , ~ _ o . , - ~ 1, ~ ~ ...<y Q .
, , ~ . _ _ _ . _ ; , A ~ _ _ , ~ , '
i ~ ~ t ti ti ~ ~ i , . -i o _ - , ~ ~ - ~ 1 _ , , s , ~ _ _ : _ 1
. ' , - _ ' ~ ' _ ` Y * J ' - , v ; , , _ - _ , d~ : J i z i
. , 'et: w j'rj. ~ _ _ . - • , . - - dW'' a Sao ~ .n ~ , J - L4 . -
. 'a r i ~ i ~ r ' J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r . t h ~J _ } DETENT , _ . , . -
- i S _ _ ' ' . . ~ _ - rr~~ q ~ ~y i . _ ' . _ - , ' - „ _ - . _ _ ' I , cd _ rya ' ~q. w
` , 1 ' ~ r t . ~ ~ 16 _ .r _ =
t . _ _ . ' '.4 . J _ _ 119: ~ .b; = ~ • W J
„ ,,.e,,, f; 7 . r ' . ! , .
Y ~ Y _ "'RRR...... - , r- .
_ i~ w~i" / y .i ' ll~~" _ , ~q ~ zo s s
" A ~f . _ - ' _ _ _ NEE. . _ . OU t CONTROL , . . _ .~~z~ `..,r~.r~..~ ~.r fir,~•+- sue. ~ ~ ter. t...~..r.f .!s ..r .-.~r~ ~ ,x
f~~ ,S~iS'jt'y rl.~i "'i~_,~tj,yLl4.^ i - / f ~ `..,,;~_1, - _ _ . _ - .r. .r u h - y - _ ~ r 0
t ~ r .w _ r i..T„~,,, - - - r_ _ ~ _ _ ! *.~s-..~ . { ~ tie " . , _ ` ; ~ ~ ~ ,
~ I fP f/ ~ _ _ _ W 'Z
1 i ~ r •y. ~ ~ IV
n~, . ~ ~ ^L
r - ~y .
'f' s- /ice `-'s I ~ ljr ~~'f ~'s~~' ~ , REVISIONS BY
r `w~~ _ Z \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ BY
\ ~ h. 1 8/12/03 nS ~ _
y ti ~ ti. \ 1 ` e<'~ TLS
d~ I w
' TLS
j
~ ~ ~ ~ - E V
e1 v ~ ~ ~ t ~ t ,N . t
_I it • 11i. .7 v. ~ ~ 1 ~
_ 4 ~ ' 1 f° 4' y ~ t
!''1. ~~r t ti ` ~E~ ~ _ ~ 1 4 it`. 4
~.fl. ' 1 1~ n ~
r'
fi
if
i
Q ii~_'•. 0
i
lJ DRAWN BY MAR " LGL
C 11 1 7100 CHECKED BY
7 •war~H° `~Ul,L!; , TLS ME1UNOSa~rosroR~
i a w,~rF~ DATES
N 'tom M 4",~, 7/31/2003 )3
.w i'~ scA~E~
N d ' .ti 1'• 60'
O N JOB No.
.y ` . 02-124
t O,
SI~ET NUN~ER GRAPHIC SCALE
M o ~ ~ ,m z,~
N
N O
7 N ei i (rN~~y
N O N 1 inch = 60 ft,
O OF SHEETS s
f
02-124V3.DWG
A
,x~.-
'
1 _
::T,
~ .
Y ~
a•

WNJgNG PATH 10 RIVER
PoDGE APIIRTMEMS
~i' o~
(~1 t , • N
19~~ ~.06,24„~ D ~;~~E 74.88
~yg'~ S?4•p4~
1 °~•g3 MAR 1 7 ~OU~
S3519'18'E 796.54' 529'34'48"E 131. ' 23
DENR • Wq~ER QIIAi.ITY
VMETLANpsNiD ~QRtiIWATER BRANCH
Sl p\
19
r
~ f
i
..~7

3
r. < ~ s~<,~:~.
~a~a~~: 3 ~ ~~ga
0~ ~ ? C 1~ a., , ~r ~x f^~fc 7!~`g
7yxai?~' l f N~ ~y~u~'yY
SED ~o RBED AR ~ y s
sy4 .5xsn s ; ry 0.27 Ac. f ~ t s <s
F s~
2 A SSG ~S;t,, ~ 't,.=, x r ~h ~
"y s~~~ mss 1. e~ s'& Fyn ~ s ~w ,'~~kY~~3 y. • H ~rS.y '.wry. ~ ~SiD~~S~,4~t~H
~ ~ i • • • . •
• • • • MZ It ~a G ~ s~ a x s s ~ R i
~ • • ' ~ / 6..~.r ,x, ? ~ k 5 y • : n iG f ~ jd,'", ~ I~~'~1j ~sP@,r~y~
' • . • ; . ~i ~ p •1 • ~ ~ s~ .6v. 6 u . ' s N ..~;7 ? ,Y~G 4 `/'.trod.,. x .
a:3Sr Y y.. xs~ ~3;
~$:z~£~ j ~1', ' ' ~'l.; i~k~~'~ . ~ 5'55 'l9.
;1f • ~ . r sy~i. 5 s ~
fi~ ' ~ ' , y..,,, ,~„u. ` ' . ' ~k ~ '
Wi't'. . , s - 4
yy~42:5 I_. ~ ~ ; ra,
Y , , \ t, .
8~, uv' ,f '
d Y,„ O i
fib ~r f, .Y
"r~ O Q
l4~`'~f.'.j.

~ a{\
,!it3 ~ yy ::/:"si ...J.....3...., i~
yn : i ` ' i ax ~ H f'' ~g x x ~ ya x~
~ ti ~'..7 " , . A s: ts£s f,.<y f. ^ ~ s~ s /s-n >,~r h
~ , ~ `i ~55' f~~fQE,. n~y~ ; sf~£ ' x.fx x~~~ ~ y??fy,6 H~~?>~ ~yy ~0;.:..
a f3' ~ 5, " fF ~`E~:;5 f I£AS.3 ~ a~~ ? Gu
~,~T`N: is z .~9 ~ih 'fi't .,E;b ;;xy ;7,~;5? k
~ .ti . "~va,.Z ~ KKt~,s>~~ ~T ~g ~ ~ t7K y'zG?.. z G ~^Y~%y,!'~~ '"s;€ . ~y: .£f z~s^a v : ~a?r s~s~st,: % , a~~ ~E: r Y~,?i~s, ~ y Y s
h f ~YG S£ if'~ ^ ~ s'sGi `"`a.a',;. "6 ~ y~Y '3%ac s'a i k£f oq r vv ~ y~~
7 V ` ' ~ ~s3 y kR~ s'?i~a ? ~ . E~ ~ £ C'N T ~£I,o: .£a' ~:Ki ~yy~kxx ,a

i
E..S~
l..F L.~#.,,p
i,.& ~ ?~roo'23~w ,
~©p 231.E
~.11, rev.»'
~ N,~30~3g"W