20060784 Ver 2_Complete File_20061016

Re: [Fwd: Re: Slabtown Rd]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Slabtown Rd]
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:12:24 -0500
To: Kevin Barnett <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, David
Baker <[e-mail]>, David McHenry <[e-mail]>
this is Cyndi's call but I could go the week of April 2 - 5 or sometime in MAy.
April 10 is full for me. thankx
Kevin Barnett wrote:
Nick Roark is requesting, on behalf of Mr. Jim Bryson and Mr. Roland Pugh, a site
meeting to discuss the deficiencies with their 401 application for a proposed
developement.
The Asheville Regional Office opposes this project as presented for the following
reasons:
1. We have *3 different purposes* presented for this project.
1. The 401 referenced leased *office space and a movie
theater*.
2. The Engineering consultant, Mr. Lofquist, has stated
that Mr. Bryson wants to build a *grocery store*.
3. Marc Davis of the NC DOT (who is currently placing fill
on site) has stated that Mr. Bryson wants to build *condos*
2. There *are brook trout on site* as discovered by the NC WRC.
3. This is an ORW watershed with now *real *stormwater plan for the
project which will protect the existing uses onsite.
4. There has been no *real *discussion of avoidance and minimization.
5. DWQ was not included / invited in any of the pre-application
mettings with respect to this project.
This package (as presented and returned 2 times) is grosely incomplete and lacks a
thoughtful attempth at minimization of impacts and no effort to protect the
existing brook trout use.
Please let Mr. Roark know if / when someone from Central Office would be able to
make a trip to Cashiers to meet with respect to this project. (I have already
offered to meet onsite on April 10. 2007 after paternity leave and Rosgen training
(level 2 and 3). Please cc me on the e-mail for my records. Also please invite
the Davids (Baker and McHenry) as they may desire to provide input into this
process.
Best regards,
Kevin
Subject:
Re: Slabtown Rd
From:
[e-mail]
Date:
Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:07:44 EST
To:
[e-mail]
To.
[e-mail]
CC:
f2 2/6/2007 2:58 PM
Re: [Fwd: Re: Slabtown Rd]
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Kevin - We are in receipt of your recent letter. Needless to say we are very
disappointed that you have sent the application back as incomplete for the second
time. I understand the constraints on your time as a result of paternity leave,
training, etc., however, we simply can't wait till April to have a meeting with
you, and would appreciate it if you could arrange an earlier meeting with staff in
Raleigh. We will be contacting them for this purpose also. Thanks.
2 of 2 2/6/2007 2:58 PM
[Fwd: Re: Slabtown Rd]
A V
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Slabtown Rd]
From: Kevin Barnett <[e-mail]> Gi G
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:26:41 -0500
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Ian McMillan <Ian. [e-mail]>, John
Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: David Baker <[e-mail]. mil>, David McHenry
<[e-mail]>
Nick Roark is requesting, on behalf of Mr. Jim Bryson and Mr. Roland Pugh, a site
meeting to discuss the deficiencies with their 401 application for a proposed
developement.
The Asheville Regional office opposes this project as presented for the following
reasons:
1. We have *3 different purposes* presented for this project.
1. The 401 referenced leased *office space and a movie
theater*.
2. The Engineering consultant, Mr. Lofquist, has stated
that Mr. Bryson wants to build a *grocery store*.
3. Marc Davis of the NC DOT (who is currently placing fill
on site) has stated that Mr. Bryson wants to build *condos*
2. There *are brook trout on site* as discovered by the NC WRC.
3. This is an ORW watershed with now *real *stormwater plan for the
project which will protect the existing uses onsite.
4. There has been no *real *discussion of avoidance and minimization.
5. DWQ was not included / invited in any of the pre-application
mettings with respect to this project.
This package (as presented and returned 2 times) is grosely incomplete and lacks a
thoughtful attempth at minimization of impacts and no effort to protect the existing
brook trout use.
Please let Mr. Roark know if / when someone from Central Office would be able to make
a trip to Cashiers to meet with respect to this project. (I have already offered to
meet onsite on April 10. 2007 after paternity leave and Rosgen training (level 2 and
3). Please cc me on the e-mail for my records. Also please invite the Davids (Baker
and McHenry) as they may desire to provide input into this process.
Best regards,
Kevin
Kevin Barnett - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Subject: Re: Slabtown Rd
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:07:44 EST
To: [e-mail]
2/6/2007 2:57 PM
[Fwd: Re: Slabtown Rd]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Kevin - We are in receipt of your recent letter. Needless to say we are very disappointed that you have sent the
application back as incomplete for the second time. I understand the constraints on your time as a result of
paternity leave, training, etc., however, we simply can't wait till April to have a meeting with you, and would
appreciate it if you could arrange an earlier meeting with staff in Raleigh. We will be contacting them for this
purpose also. Thanks.
Kevin Barnett <Kevin.Barnett(aD_ncmail.net>
NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
Re: Slabtown Rd Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2 2/6/2007 2:57 PM
Re: Slabtown Rd
P, J
Subject: Re: Slabtown Rd
From: Kevin Barnett <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:13:40 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, Cyndi
Karoly <[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Mr. Roark:
I will contact Raleigh on your clients behalf.
As the site is currently under a NOTICE OF VIOLATION for beginning land disturbing
activities in an Outstanding Resource water watershed without first obtaining an
Individual State Stormwater Permit, this also must be addressed prior to further
wetland and stream impact discussions.
Best regards,
Kevin
ECOLOGYNRCaol.com wrote:
Kevin - We are in receipt of your recent letter. Needless to say we are very
disappointed that you have sent the application back as incomplete for the second
time. I understand the constraints on your time as a result of paternity leave,
training, etc., however, we simply can't wait till April to have a meeting with
you, and would appreciate it if you could arrange an earlier meeting with staff in
Raleigh. We will be contacting them for this purpose also. Thanks.
Kevin Barnett - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Kevin Barnett <[e-mail]>
NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
1 of 1 2/6/2007 2:56 PM
Triage Check List
Date: 12/19/06
To:
Kevin Barnett, Asheville Regional Office
60-day Processing Time: 12/18/06 to 2/16/07
Project Name: Slab Town Road
DWQ #:06-0784
County: Jackson
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone: [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you 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 (Meuse, 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. Mote 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 !
Triage Check List
Date: 12/19/06
To:
Kevin Barnett, Asheville Regional Office
60-day Processing Time: 12/18/06 to 2/16/07
Project Name: Slab Town Road
DWQ #:06-0784
County: Jackson
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone: [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you 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 (Meuse, 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 !

ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ecological - Environmental - Natural Resources Consulting
4676 Bears Bluff Road - Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
[phone] - Fax [phone] - e-mail [e-mail]
December 14, 2006
Mr. Roger Edwards -1 k
NCDENR DWQ Lp=( I V/ L:rs
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778 D l ????
DENR - WATER QUALITY
SUBJECT: DWQ Project No. 064784 WETWIDS AND STORp91l ATFR BPANCH
Slab Town Road - Jim Bryson & Roland Pough
Jackson County, NC
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Please find attached our response to your letter to us dated December 5 2006. We
believe that we have addressed the items in your letter as clearly and thoroughly as we
can. As you may be aware, we submitted our original application on May 5 2006. After
we received comments from NCWRC and an information required letter from your office
we made substantial revisions to the project that resulted in reducing wetland impacts
from 0.38 acres to 0.25 acres. Approximately two months later we received a second
letter from your office directing us to resubmit the entire application package, which we
did even though we thought that this was unnecessary. The new application was
submitted to your office on October 9. Almost two months later we received your current
information required letter, which we have responded to today.
We believe that we have addressed every concern that has been raised, some issues
several times, and have coordinated our response each time with the USACE and the
NCWRC. We are not aware of any additional concerns of the USACE or the NCWRC,
and it is our opinion that they have been satisfied with our responses. At this point it
seems like we are providing the same information, or at least elabordting on information
that has been provided previously. We are pleased to provide any and all information
that the DWQ requires, and to engage in any discussions relative to how we can develop
this site and maintain the environmental quality of the area. We are simply concerned
that the process has taken so long, and that our efforts to protect, and in some cases
improve, the aquatic and natural resources on this site are going unheeded. We are very
concerned about extending this process out much longer or having to resubmit the
application again, as we believe that we have addressed all items of concern to the best of
our ability.
If you still have concerns after you review our current response, we respectfully request a
meeting to discuss your concerns, rather than another information required letter, or
Z
bumping us out of the process again. As stated previously, we are pleased to continue to
address your concerns, but would like to fully elaborate on our responses to date and
discuss the measures that we have already taken to avoid and minimize impacts to this
site.
We appreciate your consideration on this project. Please contact us at [phone] if
you have any questions regarding this information, or schedule a meeting to discuss the
status of this project. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Nick Roark
Ecologist, President, EA, Inc.
Attachments
C: Jim Bryson - Applicant
4 '
ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ecological • Environmental • Natural Resources Consulting
4676 Bears Bluff Road + Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
[phone] • Fax [phone] • e-mail [e-mail]
December 14, 2006
Mr. Roger Edwards
DWQ 401- Wetlands Unit -_1 2090 U.S. Highway 70 kO ?'
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778 f ?JJ
DEC 1 ? 2006
SUBJECT: DWQ Project No. 064784
Slab Town Road - Tim Bryson & Roland Pough , ? f n W A.r'ER TA ),
Jackson County, NC
Dear Mr. Edwards:
In accordance with your letter to us dated December 5, 2006 (attached), Ecological Associates,
Inc. is pleased to provide the additional information that you requested. The items that were
identified in your letter are addressed below:
1. Under item III.7, you pointed out that the unnamed headwater tributary to Cashiers Lake,
which we identified as the nearest water body, is also an unnamed tributary to the
Chattooga River. We are aware that this unnamed headwater tributary to Cashiers Lake
ultimately flows into the Chattooga River approxmiately 2.2 miles downstream of the
project (see attached topographic map). The closest water body is an unnamed tributary
to Cashiers Lake>Chattooga River>Savannah River.
2. Under Item VII, you noted that the previous information that we provided regarding
impact justification and avoidance/minimization did not explain the cost benefit analysis
which justified the need for the proposed impacts. Please see the attached letter from Mr.
Jim Bryson dated December14 2006, which addresses cost benefit associated with this
project.
3. In reference to the information we submitted previously regarding brook trout you stated
that we have not complied with NCWRC's request that the project be developed in such a
manner that its effects on stream temperature and peak flows are minimized. Please
reference Appendix D of our October 9* submittal, wherein we provided a' preliminary
stormwater management plan at your request. The plan and the accompanying
transmittal letter (attached) highlight those measures that are designed to reduce peak
flows and minimize any potential effects on stream temperature. Also please reference
an attached letter from Victor Loftquist, P.E. dated DecemberM 2006, which further
elaborates on the stormwater management plan. Essentially, the plan calls for the use of
bioretention cells serving sub-drainage basins within the site, with the stormwater then
directed into an underground stormwater detention system prior to discharge. We believe
that the stormwater management plan that has been developed for this site will effectively
minimize to the maximum extent possible the potential effects of peak flows and
temperature on the receiving streams.
You mentioned in Item 3 of your letter that the stormwater plan indicates that two
streams will be filled as part of the project. Since the beginning of this project the areas
that will be impacted have been determined to be linear wetlands. They are seasonally
wet seepage corridors that are located at the head of an intermittent tributary to the
unnamed perennial creek in the northern portion of the property. The wetland areas that
are proposed for filling generally lack a defined channel, and do not exhibit surface water
flow for most of the year. We do not consider the areas that are proposed to be filled as
brook trout habitat. The only brook trout habitat on the project site is the perennial
stream that transects the northern portion of the site, and the lower 100-150 feet of the
intermittent stream flowing off the site to the east. We consider the lower portion of the
intermittent stream to provide habitat only during wet periods of the year when there is
adequate flow. All the available trout habitat on the project site is being preserved with
generous amounts of upland buffer. We believe that we are correct in reporting that the
proposed work will not result in direct impact (filling or excavation) to brook trout
habitat.
Also please reference Appendix C (attached) to our submittal, Slab Town Road Brook
Trout Management Plan that was submitted to you previously, wherein we describe a
number of impact minimization measures, as well as additional mitigation features that
will be employed to further reduce any potential impacts to brook trout. In addition to
the measures identified in Appendix C, we will be pleased to conduct temperature
monitoring in the receiving streams to further evaluate the quality of these streams post
development. We believe that we have taken all practicable measures to avoid impacts to
brook trout in the nearby receiving streams.
We hope this information allows you to complete your 401 Certification action on this project.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this information, or if
you need anything further. Thank you.
Sincerely,
D. Nick Roark
Ecologist, President, EA, Inc.
Attachments
C: Kevin Barnett - DWQ, Asheville
Cyndi Karoly - DWQ, Raleigh
David McHenry - NCWRC
Jim Bryson - Applicant
Victor Loftquist-Project engineer/planner
2
?OF W A r4!?9p Michael F. Easley, Governor
\d ?i William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
tt- North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
>
p . Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 5, 2006
DWQ Project # 06-0784 Version 2
Jackson County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7005 1820 0002 9207 3772
Jim Bryson & Roland Pugh
Post Office Box 246
Highlands, NC 28741
Subject Property: Slab Town Road Project
Slab Town Road, Cashiers, NC
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Bryson & Pugh:
On October 16, 2006, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your second
application to impact 0.25 acres of wetlands for the purpose of property development.
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 wetlands and buffers 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. Name of Nearest Receiving Waters
Under Item III. 7. of your submitted application, you reference that the nearest
receiving waters area Headwater Stream of Cashiers Lake." A review of U:S.G.S.
topographic maps indicate that this is an unnamed tributary to the Chattooga River.
Your application must be updated to reflect this.
2. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Under Item VII of your submitted application, you indicate that "Impacts to wetlands
on the site were minimized to the maximum extend possible." Neither this -section,
nor Appendix A. explain the cost benefit analysis which justifies the need for these
impacts.
WollhCarolina
401 Wetlands Certirication Unit Natural/i?
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] Internet www.nmaterouality.ora
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Slabtown Road Development
Page 2 of 3
December 5, 2006
3. Appendix B
In Appendix B, Section 1.0 of your submitted application, you indicate that the
stream onsite "supports juvenile brook trout." As Brook Trout are one of the most
sensitive species of Trout, and the existing use of the stream supports this use,
your project shall not cause a removal of this use in the streams onsite.
Supporting documentation, which would support a claim that this development
would not adversely impact brook trout in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506
(b)(2) has not been provided. Additionally, under Impact Avoidance, you state
that "[w]e are confident that the project does not result in direct impacts []of streams
that are utilized by brook trout." The submitted stormwater plan shows two (2)
streams will he filled as part of this project.
According to staff of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, "[a]ll trout are
susceptible to elevated stream temperatures and require relatively silt free streams
in which to successfully spawn and feed. Brook trout have the lowest temperature
requirements with an upper lethal threshold of about 750 F (Raleigh 1982, as cited
in (1)). Temperature is the single most important factor affecting brook trout
distribution and production (Creaser 1930, Mullen 1958, McCormick et al 1972 as
cited in (1)). Loss of shading vegetation is a primary cause of stream temperature
elevation, but point source discharges like storm water from parking areas and
other impervious surfaces in developing watersheds are also contributors to
thermal pollution. Moreover, higher and faster peak flow rates in streams are
caused by increased run-off rates and decreased infiltration in developing
watersheds and these changes can degrade brook trout habitat (Hilbert 1967, as
cited in (1)).
Additionally, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission state that "[f]or these reasons,
it is particularly important that Mr. Bryson's and Mr. Pugh's Slab Town Road project
be developed in such a manner that its effects on stream temperature and peak
flows in the Chattooga --River (ORW, Tr, wild brook-trout) are minimized to the
[maximum] extent possible. Data to support this request have not been submitted.
Please respond prior to January 2, 2007 by sending this information to both Mrs. Cyndi
Karoly of the 401 Wetlands Central Office and Kevin Barnett of the DWQ Asheville
Regional Office in writing. If we do not hear from you prior to January 2, 2007, we will
assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project
as withdrawn.
Slabtown Road Development
Page 3 of 3
December 5, 2006
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 Kevin
Barnett at 828-230-8470 if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a
meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,

Roger C. Edwards, Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Unit
Division of Water Quality
JRDIkhb
cc: D. Nick Roark, President
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ Central Office
David Baker, USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 06-0784.SlabTownRoad.addinfo
UC6. I"t. 1VVU .i.L/I!ti UIMOVII J :VVU JIVIIL ;V'J- J/Lt r L
Bryson Land LLC.
P.U. Box 246
103 Highlands Plaza
Highlands, N.C_ 28741
December 14, 2006
N. C. Dept. of Environtmnt and Natural Resources
RE: Slab Town Road Project
Cashiers, N. C.
Dear Sir,
Phone: [phone]
pax: (828) 526-043fl
In response to question two under Impact Justification, the cost benefit would be as follows in
approximately numbered.
Thee subject property has been determined to be a reclanlatiozn site, by agreement with the NCDOT
and the property owners that will be used for the U. S. highway 64 vridening project in the Cashiers
area. Phillips & Jordon, a grading company under contract voth the NCDUT, will fill the lowest
portions of the reclamation site (Siab Town Road site), as permitted by US ACE and DENR, at no
cost to the property owner. The cost savings to the development from this action will be
approximately $500,000.
2. The proposed conditions map sent to DWQ with the application shows the proposed site layout. The
design plan shows 11 buildings and associated parking. To avoid the proposed wetland impact the
anchor store (large building in the center of the site) would have to be moved and three to four
buildings would have to be eliminated. As we have stated previously (see Appendix A avoidance and
minimization) it is not possible to avoid the wetlands and still provide the level of development that is
necessary to provide an acceptable return on investment. The loss of four buildings would eliminate
approximately 9,000 feet of retail space. At estimated market conditions of $25 per square footlyear,
the lost revenue would be in excess of $225,000 per year.
Project in financial jeopardy and threaten the economic feasibility of the project-
3. The cost of the loss of prime road frontage property along U. S. Highway 64 and Slab Town Road is
substantial. ne value of road :frontage retail property is greater than five tunes the value of retail
property not visible/accessible from the road. The loss of road frontage property is hard to quantify,
however, we estimate that this loss could be in excess of $1,000,000 dollars.
This loss of revenue, alone, will place the
Uec. 14. 2VUO 7: 2011 I;! tinr,vii _> rvu u , iki nc

4, There are significant benefim to developing the subject property. The property has been graded,
filled, and otherwise disturbed over a period of many decades, and was previously used as a retail and
construction materials storage site. Much of the necessary infrastructure is currently in place, it is
relatively flat, and has exceptional road frontage (flighway 64 and Slab Town Road). The
development of this site generally results in minor, unavoidable impacts to wetland areas that have
been highly disturbed in the past. There is no better site in the Cashiers business area vAthin which to
place this level of development, and clearly no other site that. would result in less overall
environmental impact. There is no other site in the Cashiers area that would not require substantial
land clearing and grading.
We warn our impact to be minimAl and will certainly be environmentally friendly to the site. 'Are bought
the site and there was no shade on this property, as there is only one standing tree on it. As we have submitted,
we intent to plant numerous trees back on the property.
Thavk you for your time and energy input on this property. We are looking forward to your response.
Jun Bryson
& Associates, Znc.
PLANNING ENGINEERING DESIGN
11 Citrus Drive Sy ek NC 28779 [phone]
October 9, 2006
Mr. D.Nick Roark, President
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
Re: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plant for
Cashiers Commercial Village
Slab Town Road Site
Jim Bryson & Roland Pugh - Owners
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Roark:
We received a copy of the September 15, 2006 letter from Kevin Barnett,
Environmental Chemist with the NC Surface Water Protection forwarded to us by
your office. After reviewing this letter, I telephoned Mr. Barnett to discuss the
preparation of a stormwater management plan and submission of an individual
stormwater permit application for this project. According to Mr. Barnett the
issuance of a 401 permit/certification for this project could be conditioned upon the
future approval of a final stormwater management plan and issuance of a future
State Individual Stormwater Permit. Mr. Barnett went on to explain that a
Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan would need to be submitted with the
401 pemnit submittal at this time.
Based on Mr. Bametfs recommendations, we have prepared a preliminary
stormwater management plan for the project. Please find enclosed the Conceptual
Stormwater Management Plan, dated October 9, ?006. This stormwater
management concept proposes the use of several bioretention cells serving sub-
drainage basins within the site which would then convey stormwater to an
underground stormwater detention system prior to discharge. The bioretention
cells would be designed based on the recommendations presented in the
NCDENR Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, dated April 1999. The
bioretention cells would be intended to aid in the removal of oils, sediments and
other contaminants associated with parking/roof/impervious areas. The
underground detention system would be constructed of oversized piping or could
employ the use of a manufactured product such as "Stormtech" by ADS. The
detention system would: a) provide additional removal of suspended solids
resulting from larger stormwater events that by pass=by the bioretention cells; b)
would lower post-development peak discharge rates an4; c) should aid, to some
Page.Two
Mr. D. Nick Roark, President
October 9, 2006
degree, in the cooling of the stormwaters prior.to discharge. Elevated stormwater
discharge temperatures are a concern with the downstream native trout habitat.
It should be noted that the stormwater management plan is based on the
previously developed conceptual development plan for the project. Further site
modifications should be anticipated during final site and grading plan design
iterations. However, the extent of wetland impact would not be increased by any
final design modifications and the basic concept of the enclosed preliminary
stormwater management plan would be utilized in the finalization of the site
design.
Should you wish to discuss this project in greater detail or if we can be of further
assistance at this time, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,.
iii{{{f llt
Lofquist & Associates, Inc.
US S 16 Y
w
SEAL
Victor Lofquist, P_E.
- enclosures
12/14/2006 16:32 82853634BU
December 14, 2006
LUF-61U1`-n1 AM AbSUU
Ist & Associates... In V
PUNNING ENGINESIUNG .9tWON
Il Citrus Drive SyNa4 NC 28779 (828) 586 - 1424
Mr. D.Nick Roark, President
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
Re: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan for
Cashiers Commercial Village
Slab Town Road Site
Jim Bryson & Roland Pugh - Owners
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Roark:
r--Hut UZ
We received a copy of the December 5, 2006 letter from Roger Edwards, Regional
Supervisor with the NC Surface Water Protection unit forwarded to us by your
office. This letter is requesting additional information related to the 401 permit
submittal prepared by your office for the above listed project.
At your request, we are writing to provide additional information on peak
stormwater flows and stormwater temperatures related to the Conceptual
Stormwater Management Plan, dated 1019106 that was forwarded to your office
with our 1019/06 letter.
The 1019/06 Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan concept proposes the use
of both bioretention and an underground stormwater detention system. These
would be separate, structural stormwater management devices as indicated on the
conceptual plan. The bioretention cells would be designed based on the
recommendations presented: in the NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual, dated April 1999. The underground stormwater detention
system would be sized based on a 25 year design storm with the intent of
releasing the 25 year peak stormwater flow at a rate no greater than pre-
development conditions.
Run-off from impervious areas such as pavements 'and roofs would initially be
conveyed to the bioretention cells. The bioretention cells would provide several,
beneficial functions. First, impounding the initial "flush" or first 1 inch of rain to a
11(14! 1bR?b l b::i1 tS:CtjDbb.?4ti?7 cur utvi? i t?ivu H??u?. r r,..,? v.,
Page 2
Mr. D. Nick Roark, President
December 14, 2006
depth of 6 inches in the bioretention areas would provide detention of this
stormwater assisting with towering the peak flow rate to predevelopment
conditions. This impounded water would then infiltrate through the bioretention
soils and sand filter before being intercepted by the underdrain system. The
infiltration process would allow initial cooling of the stormwater prior to conveying it
to the underground detention system. Because the water intercepted by the
bioretention areas would be the first flush, it would be the warmest water
discharge and would be intercepted prior to discharge to the stream. As a rainfall
event continues, the stormwater discharge temperature would approach the
temperature of the rain as the impervious surfaces continue cooling. Additionally,
the bioretention cells would aid in the removal of oils, sediments and other
potential contaminants associated with parking/roof/impervious areas through
filtration and uptake by the plantings in the cell. In summary, the bioretention cells
will provide: 1) stormwater detention to reduce peak flows, 2) cooling of the
warmest, "first flush" stormwater discharge, and 3) the potential to remove certain
pollutants.
The stormwater detention system would be designed based on a 25 year storm
event to limit the peak flow discharged to the stream to the calculated, pre-
development level. The underground detention systems would be constructed of
oversized piping or might employ the use of a manufactured product such as
"Stormtech" by ADS. The underground detention system would also provide
several beneficial functions. During a storm event, the detention system would
store the initial stormwater discharge intercepted from impervious areas and
release at a pre-development peak discharge rate based on a 25 year design
storm. As with the bioretention cells, the run-off intercepted by the detention
system would be the initial and warmest run-off. The use of underground detention
was intentionally proposed in lieu of an above-ground detention system for the
benefit of underground cooling of the stormwater prior to discharge to the stream.
To the extent practical, it is desirable to provide as much stormwater detention
volume within the bioretention areas as possible to maximize the efficiency of the
cooling process. Additionally, the underground detention system could provide
some degree of suspended solids or sediment removal.
There are numerous variables affecting the temperature of the stormwater
discharge such as pavement temperature, ambient temperature, rain temperature,
storm intensity and storm duration. The dual use of bioretention and subsurface
detention, will minimize the effect of the development on stream temperatures to
the maximum extent possible and will reduce peak storm discharge flows using
available technologies.
1:2/14/210 b 1b: J:2 82'bb8bJ4tib LurUul?j? ANN Ay5uc, rHtat b4
Page 3
Mr. D. Nick Roark, President
December 14, 2006
Should you wish to discuss this project in greater detail or if we can be of further
assistance at this time, please do not hesitate to call.
Victor
Sincerely,
Lofquist & Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX C
SLAB TOWN ROAD
BROOK TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN
October 9, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The Slab Town Road site contains one perennial stream and one intermittent tributary to
this stream. The perennial stream is approximately six feet wide and six to 10 inches
deep, with a substrate of course sand and small gravel. The perennial stream has a
limited amount of structure, relatively little overhanging vegetation, and a modest amount
of siltation. The intermittent stream averages two feet wide and several inches deep (in
the lower reaches only), has little to no overhanging vegetation, and a substrate of course
sand and small gravel. The hydrology of the intermittent stream is flashy, being driven
primarily by stormwater runoff from the surrounding uplands. The streams on the site
were electro-shocked by personnel with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) in 2005 prior to any design or preliminary site work was
conducted to determine if brook trout were present. NCWRC personnel later visited the
site in late summer, 2006 for a follow-up evaluation The perennial stream supports
juvenile brook trout, and the lower 50 to 75 feet of the intermittent stream may be utilized
by brook trout when sufficient water is present.
EM PACT AVOIDANCE
Direct impacts to all streams on the project site were initially avoided to the maximum
extent practicable. The only impacts (0.25 acres of wetlands) to aquatic resources on the
site occur in the wetlands and seepage slopes that are associated with the very upper
reaches of wetland fingers that penetrate the site from the streams and wetlands located to
the north and east. There is typically no discernable stream channel within the areas
proposed for impact, and these areas are often completely dry for long periods of time.
We are confident that the project does not result in direct impact (loss) of streams that are
utilized by brook trout. The brook trout management plan for the site, therefore, is
designed to protect and enhance brook trout streams that are located sufficiently distant
from the proposed development in the northern portion of the site.
UWACT MINEW7ATION FEATURES
The most prominent potential impacts to the brook trout streams resulting from site
development are inputs of siltation and other pollutants entering the streams from runoff,
and increasing the temperature of the streams through runoff and reduction of shading.
The following specific measures will be implemented as part of the stormwater
management plan and erosion and sediment control plan to minimize potential effects
resulting from runoff.
• Site runoff will be directed away from wetlands and streams and into the
stormwater management collection system. There will be no discharge of
concentrated runoff flow into wetlands/streams.
• Bioretention basins and underground detention will be employed to remove
sediments and other potential contaminants from runoff (see the attached
Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan contained in Appendix D of the PCN).
• Temporary sediment basins and other appropriate features including silt fencing,
diversion ditches, and an aggressive stabilization schedule for grass and seeding
will be employed.
• Bare soils will be seeded within 15 days of ground disturbance. Grass and
seeding will employ erosion control matting properly anchored with staples,
stakes or native live trees. Tall fescue will not be used in areas adjacent to aquatic
resources.
• Permanent stormwater components will be installed at the earliest possible time
well in advance of major site development or ground disturbance.
• Sediment and erosion control measures will be in place prior to construction and
will remain in place and be maintained until all areas of the site are permanently
stabilized.
• Any mechanized equipment operating near wetlands/streams will be regularly
inspected to minimize leakage fuels, oil, and other fluids. Hydroseed mixtures
and wash waters will not be in contact with streams.
OTHER NHTIGATING FEATURES
In addition to the stormwater management and erosion and sediment control practices
discussed above, the following measures will be implemented to protect and enhance the
brook trout habitat on the site.
• All of the most valuable of the on-site wetlands/streams will be preserved with a
minimum 304L upland buffer. The total protected area of 1.35 acres of
wetlands/streams and 0.58 acres upland buffer will be protected through a
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants properly recorded with the Jackson County
RMC Office.
• Planting along the existing preserved streams will be accomplished in an effort to
improve brook trout habitat and maintain optimal stream temperatures by
providing additional shading of the streams (areas along all streams and the entire
site have recently been clear-cut) . Appropriate wetland trees and shrubs will be
planted on approximately 12 to 154L centers along both the perennial and
intermittent streams within the preservation area. Trees and shrubs planted along
the existing streams will typically be of large stock (five to ten-gallon potted
plants) to provide immediate shading benefit.
• Brook trout sampling will be conducted annually for a period of five years
(designed to coincide with five year wetland creation monitoring) to evaluate
brook trout populations within on-site streams.
2
SUMMARY
The project was initially designed to avoid effecting brook trout habitat to the
maximum extent possible. As a result, no direct impacts occur to perennial or
intermittent stream reaches that are utilized by brook trout. All unaltered stream
sections that are utilized by brook trout will be protected with a generous amount of
surrounding wetlands and upland buffer. Careful stormwater management and
erosion/sediment control planning will be conducted to minimize potentially harmful
effects, including input of siltation/contaminants and increasing water temperatures,
to down-gradient brook trout habitat. Additionally, protection and enhancement
measures have been designed to protect and improve the brook trout habitat that will
remain on-site. A five-year brook trout sampling plan is also proposed to track the
health of the existing brook trout population.
3
F WA7`?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
P William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
G 'C Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 5, 2006
DWQ Project # 06-0784 Version 2
Jackson County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7005 1820 0002 9207 3772
Jim Bryson & Roland Pugh
Post Office Box 246
Highlands, NC 28741
Subject Property: Slab Town Road Project D
Slab Town Road, Cashiers, NC DEC ? 2006
DE)YR ` wATfwF
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION MD ST ^??IT
Dear Mr. Bryson & Pugh:
On October 16, 2006, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your second
application to impact 0.25 acres of wetlands for the purpose of property development.
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 wetlands and buffers 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. Name of Nearest Receiving Waters
Under Item III. 7. of your submitted application, you reference that the nearest
receiving waters are a "Headwater Stream of Cashiers Lake." A review of U.S.G.S.
topographic maps indicate that this is an unnamed tributary to the Chattooga River.
Your application must be updated to reflect this.
2. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Under Item VII of your submitted application, you indicate that "Impacts to wetlands
on the site were minimized to the maximum extend possible." Neither this section,
nor Appendix A. explain the cost benefit analysis which justifies the need for these
impacts.
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: www.ncwaterguality.org
NorthCarolina
Naturally
4n Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10%a Post Consumer Paper
Slabtown Road Development
Page 2 of 3
December 5, 2006
3. Appendix B
In Appendix B, Section 1.0 of your submitted application, you indicate that the
stream onsite "supports juvenile brook trout." As Brook Trout are one of the most
sensitive species of Trout, and the existing use of the stream supports this use,
your project shall not cause a removal of this use in the streams onsite.
Supporting documentation, which would support a claim that this development
would not adversely impact brook trout in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506
(b)(2) has not been provided. Additionally, under Impact Avoidance, you state
that "[w)e are confident that the project does not result in direct impacts []of streams
that are utilized, by brook trout." The submitted stormwater plan shows two (2)
streams will be filled as part of this project.
According to staff of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, "[a]II trout are
susceptible to elevated stream temperatures and require relatively silt free streams
in which to successfully spawn and feed. Brook trout have the lowest temperature
requirements with an upper lethal threshold of about 750 F (Raleigh 1982, as cited
in (1)). Temperature is the single most important factor affecting brook trout
distribution and production (Creaser 1930, Mullen 1958, McCormick et al 1972 as
cited in (1)). Loss of shading vegetation is a primary cause of stream temperature
elevation, but point source discharges like storm water from parking areas and
other impervious surfaces in developing watersheds are also contributors to
thermal pollution. Moreover, higher and faster peak flow rates in streams are
caused by increased run-off rates and decreased infiltration in developing
watersheds and these changes can degrade brook trout habitat (Hilbert 1967, as
cited in (1)).
Additionally, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission state that "[f]or these reasons,
it is particularly important that Mr. Bryson's and Mr. Pugh's Slab Town Road project
be developed in such a manner that its effects on stream temperature and peak
flows in the Chattooga River (ORW, Tr, wild brook trout) are minimized to the
[maximum] extent possible. Data to support this request have not been submitted.
Please respond prior to January 2, 2007 by sending this information to both Mrs. Cyndi
Karoly of the 401 Wetlands Central Office and Kevin Barnett of the DWQ Asheville
Regional Office in writing. If we do not hear from you prior to January 2, 2007, we will
assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project
as withdrawn.
Slabtown Road Development
Page 3 of 3
December 5, 2006
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 Kevin
Barnett at 828-230-8470 if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a
meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,

Roger C. Edwards, Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Unit
Division of Water Quality
J RD/khb
cc: D. Nick Roark, President
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ Central Office
David Baker, USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 06-0784.SlabTown Road. add info
Triage Check List
Date: 10/23/06 l' Project Name: Slab Town Road
DWQ #:06-0784, Ver. 2
County: Jackson
Kevin Barnett, Asheville Regional Office
To:
60-day Processing Time: 10/16/06 to 12/14/06
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone: [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you 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 (Meuse, 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
1-1
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!
i
Page Two
Mr. D. Nick Roark, President
October 9, 2006
degree, in the cooling of the stormwaters prior to discharge. Elevated stormwater
discharge temperatures are a concern with the downstream native trout habitat.
It should be noted that the stormwater management plan is based on the
previously developed conceptual development plan for the project. Further site
modifications should be anticipated during final site and grading plan design
iterations. However, the extent of wetland impact would not be increased by any
final design modifications and the basic concept of the enclosed preliminary
stormwater management plan would be utilized in the finalization of the site
design.
Should you wish to discuss this project in greater detail or if we can be of further
assistance at this time, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Lofquist & Associates, Inc. ,,.?s•"""'?tk?
/ ?? ????..VS_e a-«yy.... fit`
« SY
i-A
Victor Lofquist, P.E.
- enclosures
ti 0 .2 .?
Quist & Associates, Inc.
PLANNING ENGINEERING DESIGN
I1 Citrus Drive Sylva, NC 28779 (828) 586 - 1424
October 9, 2006
Mr. D.Nick Roark, President
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
Re: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plant for
Cashiers Commercial Village
Slab Town Road Site
Jim Bryson & Roland Pugh - Owners
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Roark:
We received a copy of the September 15, 2006 letter from Kevin Barnett,
Environmental Chemist with the NC Surface Water Protection forwarded to us by
your office. After reviewing this letter, I telephoned Mr. Barnett to discuss the
preparation of a stormwater management plan and submission of an individual
stormwater permit application for this project. According to Mr. Barnett the
issuance of a 401 permit/certification for this project could be conditioned upon the
future approval of a final stormwater management plan and issuance of a future
State Individual Stormwater Permit. Mr. Barnett went on to explain that a
Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan would need to be submitted with the
401 permit submittal at this time.
Based on Mr. Barnett's recommendations, we have prepared a preliminary
stormwater management plan for the project. Please find enclosed the Conceptual
Stormwater Management Plan, dated October 9, ?006. This stormwater
management concept proposes the use of several bioretention cells serving sub
drainage basins within the site which would then convey stormwater to an
underground stormwater detention system prior to discharge. The .bioretention
cells would be designed based on the recommendations presented in the
NCDENR Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, dated April 1999. The
bioretention cells would be intended to aid. in the removal of oils, sediments and
other contaminants associated with parking/roof/impervious areas. The
underground detention system would be constructed of oversized piping or could
employ the use of a manufactured product such . as "Stormtech" by ADS. The
detention system would: a) provide additional removal of suspended solids
resulting from larger stormwater events that by pass-by the bioretention cells; b)
would lower post-development peak discharge rates anq; c) should aid, to some
A
r
SUMMARY
The project was initially designed to avoid effecting brook trout habitat to the
maximum extent possible. As a result, no direct impacts occur to perennial or
intermittent stream reaches that are utilized by brook trout. All unaltered stream
sections that are utilized by brook trout will be protected with a generous amount of
surrounding wetlands and upland buffer. Careful stormwater management and
erosion/sediment control planning will be conducted to minimize potentially harmful
effects, including input of siltation/contaminants and increasing water temperatures,
to down-gradient brook trout habitat. Additionally, protection and enhancement
measures have been designed to protect and improve the brook trout habitat that will
remain on-site. A five-year brook trout sampling plan is also proposed to track the
health of the existing brook trout population.
3
y.
• Site runoff will be directed away from wetlands and streams and into the
stormwater management collection system. There will be no discharge of
concentrated runoff flow into wetlands/streams.
• Bioretention basins and underground detention will be employed to remove
sediments and other potential contaminants from runoff (see the attached
Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan contained in Appendix D of the PCN).
• Temporary sediment basins and other appropriate features including silt fencing,
diversion ditches, and an aggressive stabilization schedule for grass and seeding
will be employed.
• Bare soils will be seeded within 15 days of ground disturbance. Grass and
seeding will employ erosion control matting properly anchored with staples,
stakes or native live trees. Tall fescue will not be used in areas adjacent to aquatic
resources.
• Permanent stormwater components will be installed at the earliest possible time
well in advance of major site development or ground disturbance.
• Sediment and erosion control measures will be in place prior to construction and
will remain in place and be maintained until all areas of the site are permanently
stabilized.
• Any mechanized equipment operating near wetlands/streams will be regularly
inspected to minimize leakage fuels, oil, and other fluids. Hydroseed mixtures
and wash waters will not be in contact with streams.
OTHER MITIGATING FEATURES
In addition to the stormwater management and erosion and sediment control practices
discussed above, the following measures will be implemented to protect and enhance the
brook trout habitat on the site.
• All of the most valuable of the on-site wetlands/streams will be preserved with a
minimum 30-ft. upland buffer. The total protected area of 1.35 acres of
wetlands/streams and 0.58 acres upland buffer will be protected through a
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants properly recorded with the Jackson County
RMC Office.
• Planting along the existing preserved streams will be accomplished in an effort to
improve brook trout habitat and maintain optimal stream temperatures by
providing additional shading of the streams (areas along all streams and the entire
site have recently been clear-cut) . Appropriate wetland trees and shrubs will be
planted on approximately 12 to 15-ft. centers along both the perennial and
intermittent streams within the preservation area. Trees and shrubs planted along
the existing streams will typically be of large stock (five to ten-gallon potted
plants) to provide immediate shading benefit.
• Brook trout sampling will be conducted annually for a period of five years
(designed to coincide with five year wetland creation monitoring) to evaluate
brook trout populations within on-site streams.
2
r
APPENDIX C
SLAB TOWN ROAD
BROOK TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN
October 9, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The Slab Town Road site contains one perennial stream and one intermittent tributary to
this stream. The perennial stream is approximately six feet wide and six to 10 inches
deep, with a substrate of course sand and small gravel. The perennial stream has a
limited amount of structure, relatively little overhanging vegetation, and a modest amount
of siltation. The intermittent stream averages two feet wide and several inches deep (in
the lower reaches only), has little to no overhanging vegetation, and a substrate of course
sand and small gravel. The hydrology of the intermittent stream is flashy, being driven
primarily by stormwater runoff from the surrounding uplands. The streams on the site
were electro-shocked by personnel with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) in 2005 prior to any design or preliminary site work was
conducted to determine if brook trout were present. NCWRC personnel later visited the
site in late summer, 2006 for a follow-up evaluation. The perennial stream supports
juvenile brook trout, and the lower 50 to 75 feet of the intermittent stream may be utilized
by brook trout when sufficient water is present.
IMPACT AVOIDANCE
Direct impacts to all streams on the project site were initially avoided to the maximum
extent practicable. The only impacts (0.25 acres of wetlands) to aquatic resources on the
site occur in the wetlands and seepage slopes that are associated with the very upper
reaches of wetland fingers that penetrate the site from the streams and wetlands located to
the north and east. There is typically no discernable stream channel within the areas
proposed for impact, and these areas are often completely dry for long periods of time.
We are confident that the project does not result in direct impact (loss) of streams that are
utilized by brook trout. The brook trout management plan for the site, therefore, is
designed to protect and enhance brook trout streams that are located sufficiently distant
from the proposed development in the northern portion of the site.
IMPACT MINIMIZATION FEATURES
The most prominent potential impacts to the brook trout streams resulting from site
development are inputs of siltation and other pollutants entering the streams from runoff,
and increasing the temperature of the streams through runoff and reduction of shading.
The following specific measures will be implemented as part of the stormwater
management plan and erosion and sediment control plan to minimize potential effects
resulting from runoff.
300ctO2
VI. Site Management
B1 Who wil1 ne the site after the mitigation effort is deemed successful? t?
A Will wetland functions be impacted by current or future land use patterns? YES / O

NOTES:
300ct02
C. As-Built Report to be submitted within 30 days of project construction? NO
D. Date Annual Monitoring Report to be submitted: loeL z" l
V. Consideration of Factors of Failure
?VA
?s
B. Are there Contingency Plans built into the proposal to address the above
factors? ES NO
A. Describe how the following have been considered for this project:
Are these Specific/Measurable/Attainable/Reasonable/Trackable? / YES V NOI
300ct02
.1A 1o -4/
A. Vegetation: /7?yV c4 0..K 320 7-61-f GLJ j 4161 C A
7.
G
e these S ecific/MeasurableJAttainabletReasonabWFrackablel2 S N
IV. Monitoring - lj ?G > CGI ! !!?- i G f f /gGf / <-0-1 Ploeot

III. Success Criteria -.5 ? cle• 0 d -llblltl Plate
A. ame and telephone number of person responsible for the success of 's p rQl 'ect:
ab
B. Is there a monitoring plan? ES NO
300ctO2
E. Hydrology
2_ List the hydrologic inputs: l fft/liJ ?GtJG?.2r?` ?'(/r771L-?-
a. For groundwater driven systems, will monitoring wells be installed pursua to the
most recent ERDC Technical Note? / NO
b. For surface water driven systems, will flood gauges be installed? YES / NO A114-
Describe type/methodology:
5. Were the principles of HGM or other classification system considered? YE / O
Describe:
6. Will the hydrologic regime predicted by the water budget be appropriate
for the target wetland? ?9/ NO
e these S ecific/MeasurabletAttainable/Reasonable/Trackable? ?VkV/ N
1. Was a Water Budget prepared for low, average and high conditions
per WETS data? (Attach Report) YES
OOcto2
D. Soils
1. Have site soils been mapped? ES NO
2. List Soil Series and Textures: -'5 q1V & 601 ikl e-4i'd - Lee % e s
_ CcJ'lL?fr ?OGtM
3. Are soils types appropriate for the target wetland? ES NO
Mel-;;2-
6. Are the fertility results within the standards for the plantings? YES / NO
Describe results/amendments required:
If PC Cropland, has site been evaluated for plow pans, field crowns, ,, ///
tile drainage systerri/ YES /NO A
Describe findings:
4. Fertility sampling undertaken in the RE? (Attach Report) YES N
5. Fertility sampling undertaken in the mitigation site? (Attach Report) YES 0-0--)
8. Is disking proposed after grading and/or prior to planting? YES
9. Is there a grading plan? (Attach) (ONO

300ct02
H. Foundation of the 1VMation Plan
2. Are plantings listed to species? S/ O
3: Are local (200 miles north/south) propagules to be planted
and verified by nursery certificate? ?NO
4. Have diversity and density of species within the Reference
Ecosystem been considered in the plan? - NO
5. Has consideration been given to planting the wetland upland
interface with suitable transition zone species? `:1 NO
Describe the
ors R
C. Veeetation
1. Was a Reference Ecos stem ared? ' ` YE
Y (RE) report
Prep
300ctO2
Wetland Comnensatorv Mitigation Considerations
Action ID:
Site/Bank.Name: 7"Va"Li 1 D.1 6JfT6,14Av1,-) MIT- 61rCr
JAC6L All eJQ
Coordinates wctod ae ): su,?ae cex 3a srz3r2>: 3.5.s / Z 7z ? c -? ss6sii?:. a . D 77? a
Method location determined (code): ors ' or" (A4Aawo rt otaois o&a Gts o&cK
USES Quad Sheet: 161
? l2`5
Soil Survey Sheet No..
Prepared By: /J IC /Z R64f2 o-6 161f-C
A? L Introduction
A. Is a permit required for this project? NO
B. Type of Mitigation (circle): Restoration / . reation Enhancement / Preservation
C. Identify Wetland Community Type (Shafale and Weakley):
D. Will Threatened or Endangered Species or designated
Critical Habitats be impacted? YENL'9
E. Do any Cultural Resource issues exist on the site? YES O?
F. Do any Haz1Tox issues exist on the site? yE$
G Has a wetland. determination been. undertaken and verified?
NO
Table 1. Trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation suitable for planting in
wetland creation areas at the Slab Town Road site.
TREES
• Red maple (Acer rubrum)
• Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
• Sweet birch (Betula lenta)
• White pine (Pinus strobus)
• Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
• River birch (Betula nigra)
• Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
SHRUBS
• Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
• Great laurel (Rhododendron maximum)
• Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
• Black willow (Salix nigra)
• Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
• Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
• Highland doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana)
• Northern wild rasin (Viburnum nudum)
HERBACEOUS VEGETATION
• Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea)
• Asters (Asters spp.)
• Jewel weed (Impatiens capensis)
• Goldenrod (Solidago spp.)
• St. Johns wort (Hypericum spp.)
• Soft rush (Juncus effusus)
• Smartweed (Polygonium spp.)
• Wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus)
• New York fern (Thelypteris sp.)
• Sedges (Carex spp.)
• Joe-Pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum)
• Thoroughwort (Eupatorium spp.)
9
9.0 Schedule
The wetland mitigation will be completed prior to conducting the wetland impacts
authorized by the permit. The wetland and stream preservation areas will be
established and identified on the ground immediately upon permit issuance. The
wetland creation will be conducted as soon as practical after permit issuance (but
prior to wetland impacts). Mitigation monitoring will commence during the later
part of the first growing season following implementation of mitigation.
10.0 Wetland Ratios
Acreage ratios are used to determine if the proposed mitigation is adequate. The
mitigation project uses creation, enhancement, and preservation. The following
table shows how the acreage of mitigation is determined.
Creation @ 3:1 0.19 acres of creation generates 0.063 acres
Enhancement @ 4:1 1.22 acres enhanced generates 0.305 acres
Preservation @ 10:1 1.22 acres preserved generates 0.122 acres
Total Mitigation 0.535 acres
The proposed project results in 0.25 acres of wetland impact. At the specified
ratios the proposed mitigation generates 0.535 acres of mitigation. We believe the
proposed mitigation adequately compensates for the proposed impact.
11.0 Summary
The 10.46-acre Slab Town Road site contains approximately 2.60 acres of
wetlands and 430 linear feet of jurisdictional streams. The proposed project
results in the unavoidable impact to 0.25 acres of wetlands. An attempt has been
made throughout the planning and design phases of this project to avoid to the
maximum extent practicable impacts to jurisdictional streams. On-site mitigation
for these unavoidable impacts consists of wetland creation (0.19 acres), stream
and wetlands enhancement by buffering (0.58 acres), and wetland and stream
preservation (1.35 acres). The proposed mitigation will substantially improve the
quality and function of the remaining wetlands and streams on site, and create a
valuable, contiguous reserve of wetlands, streams and upland buffer within this
watershed.
8
In addition to the on-site reference area, a second reference area will be located in
adjacent wetlands just to the northeast of the project site. This reference area will
be located in wetlands that share the same geomorphology and hydrology as the
creation areas, however this reference area is a mature, stabile system that has not
been recently clear-cut. We believe this reference area will provide a valuable
site for a long-term comparison of the created and unaltered clear-cut wetlands to
the adjacent mature uncut wetlands.
6.0 Success Criteria
The following performance standards, in conjunction with comparison to the
reference areas, will be used to determine the success of wetland creation.
• Mean density of 320 trees/shrubs per acre (TPA), including planted and
volunteer species, which match the dominant species of the on-site
reference area...
• A minimum of 75 percent survival of planted tree/shrub species...
• Establishment of 75 percent coverage of woody and herbaceous
groundcover, which includes at least 50 percent of species common to the
on-site reference area...
• Positive evidence of hydric soils...
• Depth to soil water table within at least 12 inches of the ground surface for
21 consecutive days during the growing season, or comparable to within
10 percent of the on-site reference area.
7.0 Responsible Parties
Ecological Associates, Inc. will set up the monitoring program, and will be
responsible for yearly mitigation monitoring, and submitting reports to the
USACE and regional and central office of NCDWQ. Financial responsibility for
the mitigation will be by the owner of the tract as follows:
• Jim Bryson & Roland Pough - P.O. Box 246 - Highlands, NC 29741
[phone]
In the event that either the entire tract or parcels thereof are sold, the financial
responsibility for the mitigation will run with the land, i.e., the owner of the land
is ultimately responsible for the mitigation.
8.0 Contingency Plan
The contingency plan for the wetland creation will be to conduct additional
planting of wetland vegetation to satisfy the specified success criteria regarding
wetland vegetation, and/or regrade the site to satisfy specified hydrological and/or
soil parameters.
7
the long axis of each wetland creation areas, and 30-foot (15-foot radius) circular
sample plots will be randomly established along this transect. A minimum of two
30-foot circular sample plots will be established in each creation site. The
location of the baseline transects and individual sample plots will be permanently
marked.
Trees and shrubs will be sampled within the sample plots by counting individual
stems. Trees and shrubs will be identified to species, and trees/shrubs per acre
(TPA) determined for each species in all plots. Herbaceous vegetation will be
sampled by identifying the dominant species present and estimating percent
coverage of all species combined within the 30-foot plot. Photographs of the site
will be taken across the vegetation sample points.
Hydrological monitoring consisted of measuring the depth to soil water table in
monitoring wells in each of the four wetland creation areas and in two reference
sites. Monitoring will conducted weekly during late winter-early spring
(February-March, inclusive), when flooding and/or saturation are expected to be
highest. During the balance of the year measurements will be taken monthly.
Measurements will be taken in the field from soil water table to the top of the well
casing, and later corrected to depth from ground surface to soil water table.
Qualitative monitoring within the wetland preservation and upland buffer areas
will consist of yearly pedestrian surveys to document any changes that may have
occurred (or to document that there have been no encroachments into the
preservation areas). The pedestrian surveys will be supported with photographs
taken from permanent photographic stations throughout the area. At the end of
three years of monitoring and at the end of the monitoring period (five years), the
wetland creation areas will be evaluated in accordance with the 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manuaf to determine if wetland criteria have been satisfied.
5.0 Reference Areas
Two reference areas have been selected to assist in evaluating the success of
wetland creation. Evaluation of the reference areas will be used in conjunction
with specific success criteria to determine the relative success of wetland creation.
In the instant case the wetland creation area is directly connected to other
unaltered preserved on-site wetlands thereby providing a suitable on-site
reference area. The on-site reference area will be the same as the prototypical
wetland discussed in Section 3. 1.1 above used to establish grade and substrate.
The reference area and the creation sites have homogeneous soil conditions, a
shared water supply, and exhibit a similar early succcessional vegetation
community. Comparison with the on-site reference area will be one of several
evaluative success criteria.
2 USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Wetlands Research Program
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. 92pp plus appendices.
6
preserved wetlands) that will be enhanced by the placement of a variable
width undisturbed buffer of approximately 0.58 acres around the
wetland/stream preservation area. The minimum upland buffer width will
be 30 feet - maximum buffer width will be in excess of 100 feet. The
upland buffer will remain in an undisturbed condition with prohibitions
including construction, land disturbance/grading, timber harvesting, and
cutting of vegetation. Selective planting will be conducted within the
upland buffers, which are currently in an early successional stage, to
achieve the desired upland tree and shrub species composition. Provisions
may be allowed for future utility lines to cross the protected area. The
upland buffers and the preserved wetlands/strmnis that they surround will
be protected through a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant properly
recorded with the Jackson County RMC Office. We believe that the
proposed upland buffers are an important element of the mitigation plan
and that they perform physical and biological functions that are integral in
the protection and maintenance of the target aquatic resources. We also
believe that the upland buffer areas are under a demonstrable threat, and
without protection would be subject to significant degradation.
3.3 Wetland/Stream Preservation
All wetlands and streams on the Slab Town Road site that are not
proposed for filling will be preserved. The preserved wetlands/streams
(1.35 acres), and the upland buffers (0.58 acres) that surround them will be
protected through a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant properly recorded
with the Jackson County RMC Office.
4.0 Compliance Monitoring
Compliance monitoring within the mitigation areas will consist of vegetation,
soils, and hydrological monitoring (the three structural elements) in the wetland
creation sites, and photographic documentation in preservation areas. Vegetation,
soils, and hydrological monitoring will be conducted for five years, and will take
place during the late summer-early fall of each monitoring year. Yearly reports
will be provided to the USACE and NCDENR by December 30 of each
monitoring year. Quantitative monitoring will take place in the wetland creation
areas, and qualitative monitoring will be conducted within the wetland/stream and
upland buffer preservation areas.
The quantitative monitoring methodology for the wetland creation sites is adapted
from the quadrant sampling methodology as described for comprehensive wetland
determination in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands'. Permanent baseline transects will be established across
' Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Idem png and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. USACE, USEPA, USFWS and USDA-SCS. Washington D.C
Cooperative Technical Publication. 77pp. plus appendices.
5
r
stabilized as appropriate and seeded with a perennial seed mixture
containing a predominance of native wetland species. The grading
will be performed by a contractor selected by the owner.
Essentially, the grading phase will be designed and constructed to
duplicate the structural elements of soils and hydrology within the
adjacent, unaltered wetlands, particularly the prototypical wetland.
Ecological Associates personnel will assist the site engineer and/or
the owner with environmental construction management to achieve
the proper grades and hydrological zone.
3.1.2 Wetland Planting
Subsequent to grading and stabilization, the prepared site will be
planted with wetland trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation.
Vegetation planting will be accomplished by Ecological
Associates, and will generally be conducted during the dormant
season (January - March, inclusive). Wetland trees and shrubs
will be planted randomly throughout the creation area on six to
eight-foot centers. Planted trees will be nursery grown one-year
old bare-root seedlings. Shrubs will be either nursery grown or
transplants from nearby wetland areas. Herbaceous vegetation will
be planted randomly throughout the creation area on approximately
three-foot centers. Tree, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation
selected for planting will depend to some extent upon availability,
however, planted species will be those that are known to
predominate in adjacent and nearby wetland areas and will
generally be selected from the list contained in Table I (attached).
Local propagules will be utilized to the maximum extent
practicable - nursery stock will be obtained from, nurseries within
200 miles north and south of the site. Receipts will be retained and
included in monitoring reports.
In addition to planting in the wetland creation sites, planting along
the existing preserved streams will be accomplished in an effort to
improve brook trout habitat by providing additional shading of the
stream. Appropriate wetland trees and shrubs will be planted on
approximately 12 to 15-ft. centers along both the perennial and
intermittent streams within the preservation area. Trees and shrubs
planted along the existing streams will typically be of large stock
(five to ten-gallon potted plants) to provide immediate shading
benefit.
3.2 Wetland/Stream Enhancement By Upland Buffering
There are approximately 1.35 acres of preserved wetlands and 430 linear
feet of preserved streams (included within the on the 1.35 acres of
4
A
3.0 On-site Wetland Mitigation
The on-site wetland mitigation consists of wetland creation, wetland and stream
enhancement by upland buffering, and wetland and stream preservation. The
mitigation areas are shown on the proposed conditions drawing contained in
Attachment B, and are described in the following sections.
3.1 Wetland Creation
There are four small areas of uplands that are adjacent to the preserved
wetlands that are good candidates for wetland creation. The four areas are
all clear-cut upland areas (the entire tract was clear cut within the last five
years) that have been impacted to some degree by previous development.
We believe that the proposed wetland creation will integrate effectively
with existing wetlands to provide an overall improvement to the protected
area. The wetland creation will be accomplished in two phases - grading
the wetland creation areas to appropriate elevations, and wetland
vegetation planting. The structural elements of vegetation, soils, and
hydrology will be considered in both phases of the wetland creation
project.
3.1.1 Grading
Grading of the four wetland creation areas is intended to integrate
the created wetland areas into the adjacent preserved wetlands.
The areas designated for wetland creation will be graded to an
elevation that is consistent with the adjacent preserved wetlands, as
established by site survey. Typically, this is done by establishing a
prototypical wetland area within the adjacent unaltered wetlands,
establishing this elevation by survey, and then grading the created
wetland areas to the established elevation. The prototypical
wetland area will also be evaluated for soils and hydrology in order
to duplicate these parameters in the created wetlands. Earthen
material from the creation areas will be removed by excavators,
bulldozers, or other appropriate equipment, with all resultant
material being deposited on nearby uplands. The wetland gradient
and substrate composition will be reestablished consistent with the
wetland characteristics in the immediately adjacent wetlands (the
prototypical wetland). Some backfilling of suitable material may
be required. As a practical measure, the site is graded to the design
elevation first, and then additional excavation and backfill is done
in appropriate amounts where necessary as determined by field
conditions. Suitable backfill materials will be obtained from de-
mucked wetland areas authorized for filling. The created wetland
edge will be tapered into existing upland slopes where appropriate.
Upon conclusion of grading, the creation sites will immediately be
3

2.0 Foundation of the SMART Mitigation Plan
The following elements of the SMART mitigation plan are specific, measurable,
attainable, reasonable, and trackable.
2.1 Goals
The overall goal of the Slab Town Road mitigation project is to replace
the lost functions and values associated with 0.25 acres of wetlands by a
comprehensive mitigation plan of wetland creation, wetland enhancement
by upland buffering, and wetland/stream preservation. Specific goals of
the mitigation project include:
• Create 0.19 acres of wetlands from uplands that meet USACE
criteria for identification of wetlands, and that will integrate
effectively with adjacent unaltered wetlands.
• Apply added protection to existing unaltered wetlands/streams and
created wetlands by establishing 0.05 acres of adjacent upland
buffer.
• Insure long-term protection of the preserved areas (existing
unaltered wetlands/streams, created wetlands, and upland buffers)
by placing stringent restrictive covenants on these areas.
• Evaluate the success of the mitigation plan by conducting five
years of mitigation monitoring.
2.2 Target Functions
The wetlands that will be lost are described in Section 1.0 above. The
primary functions that are associated with these wetlands include
production of detritus and dissolved organic nutrients through growth and
decay of vascular plants, provision of habitat for wetland dependent plant
and animal species, and water quality enhancement functions through
assimilation of excess nutrients and filtration of potential pollutants.
These primary functions will be satisfactorily replaced by the proposed
on-site wetland mitigation in conjunction with improved design and
management of the site.
2.3 Structure
The structural elements of the wetland mitigation area are the vegetation,
soils, and hydrology. These three structural elements will be considered
in the design and construction of the mitigation area. (see Section 3.0 of the
Wetland Mitigation Plan), and will be monitored (see Section 4.0) during
the five-year monitoring study.
2
.
APPENDIX B
SLAB TOWN ROAD
ON-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
May 1, 2006
Revised July 3, 2006
Revised October 9, 2006
The Slab Town Road project proposes to fill 0.25 acres of wetlands for commercial
development of a 10.46-acre site. A comprehensive on-site wetland mitigation plan has
been developed to compensate for these unavoidable impacts. The plan is designed in
accordance with USACE guidelines for wetland mitigation found at
http•//www saw.usace.armmil/wetlands/miti atg_iopZpermitting html. We believe the
plan contains all the elements of a SMART plan - specific, measurable, attainable,
reasonable, and practical. The plan consists of on-site wetland creation, wetland and
stream enhancement by buffering, and wetland and stream preservation. The conditions
of the wetlands that will be impacted and the individual elements of the comprehensive
wetland mitigation plan are discussed below. The Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Checklist is contained as Attachment A.
1.0 Existing Conditions of Wetlands Proposed for Impact
The 10.46-acre Slab Town Road site contains approximately 1.60 acres of
wetlands and approximately 430 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams
(included within the 1.60 acres of wetlands) under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Please reference Attachment B containing a
drawing of existing conditions. The wetlands throughout the site are relatively
disturbed, as they have all been clear-cut and portions previously impacted by
adjacent upland development. The streams on the site consist of one perennial
stream and one intermittent tributary to the perennial stream. The perennial
stream is approximately six feet wide and six to 10 inches deep, with a substrate
of course sand and small gravel. The stream has a limited amount of structure and
a modest amount of siltation. The perennial stream supports juvenile brook trout.
The hydrology of the intermittent stream is flashy, being driven primarily by
stormwater runoff from the surrounding uplands. The wetlands that are proposed
for filling are typically the very upper terminal extensions of the site wetlands,
and have been variously impacted by adjacent development. There is typically no
discernable stream channel within the areas proposed for impact, and these areas
are often completely dry.

northern portion of the site, the wetlands on the site are small, disjunct areas that are
the terminal portions of extended wetland fingers. The arrangement and
configuration of these small wetland areas does not allow for any logical arrangement
of commercial or residential products around these areas. The roads and
infrastructure to access the site would be so convoluted that the resulting master plan
would be unacceptable from a planning, engineering, and transportation standpoint.
The overall result would be a project that is not economically feasible. The no-action
alternative would result in severely limited development on this site, and no
associated mitigation or stormwater management improvements, which we believe to
be important and positive aspects of the project. The wetland creation and
enhancement opportunities and the overall water qualitylstormwater management
improvements that are expected to occur would not result from the no-action
alternative.
2. The alternative of filling all the wetlands on the site is not considered a feasible
alternative based primarily on environmental considerations. This alternative would
max me economic gain, but would result in a high level of wetland impacts. This
alternative would not take advantage of the on-site wetland creation and enhancement
opportunities that are available, and would not provide the necessary water quality
improvements to on-site and downstream wetlands and streams.
I The selected alternative, to kill only the most marginal wetlands on the site and
provide extensive, valuable mitigation, is the only feasible alternative. This
alternative provides a project that is feasible from an engineering, planning, and
economic standpoint, and still results in minimal unavoidable wetland impacts (0.25
acres). We believe that the minimal amount of unavoidable impact to what are
clearly marginal in conjunction with valuable, far-reaching mitigation delivers the
best possible developmental scenario for this site.
o'`'
avoidance and minimization, and the following discussion on no practical
alternatives.
• Can the stream be relocated as a natural channel design as opposed to culverted or
otherwise filled? Impacts on this site are generally confined to wetlands associated with
the very upper reaches of intermittent streams. There are no options to relocate streams
on this site.
• Is any single stream crossed more than once? There are no stream crossings associated
with the project.
• Can property access routes be moved or reduced to avoid stream, wetland, water and
buffer impacts? Access into the property does not involve wetland/waters impacts.
Access throughout the site, particularly the northern portion of the site, which contains
wetlands and streams, has been designed to avoid and reduce impacts.
• Can a building, parking lot, etc be realigned to avoid impacts? Buildings and parking lots
were originally designed to minimize wetland/waters impacts (original proposed impact
was 0.38 acres). Impacts were further reduced by redesigning building layout and
parking to effect a reduction from 0.38 acres to 0.25 acres of wetland impact.
• Can the site layout be reconfigured to avoid impacts? Same comment as above. We do
not believe that the site layout can be reconfigured to further reduce impacts.
• Can headwalls or steeper side slopes be used to avoid/minimize impacts? A combination
of headwalls and/or 1:1 slopes are currently being utilized to minimize wetland impact
and provide the required 30-ft upland buffer adjacent to preserved wetlands.
• Can a retaining wall be used to avoid/minimize impacts? Same comment as above.
• Can cul de sacs be used in place of a crossing? The use of cul-de-sacs is not applicable
to this project.
• Can lots be reshaped or have shared driveways to avoid impacts? Building and parking
areas have been reshaped several times to affect the least amount of wetland impact.
NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVES
As an upscale, retail/office/entertainment complex, the project relies on quality individual
businesses that are clustered together and anchored by a major recognized anchor tenant. The
businesses function as a whole to create the multi-use development complex. Alternative
properties for this project were not considered as the property is already owned by the applicant.
Additionally, the proposed site is ideally suited for the proposed development, as the size,
configuration, and location are optimal. The project also takes full advantage of existing public
roads, particularly N.C. Highway 64 and Slab Town Road. A large proportion of the project site
has previously been used for development, and allows for expansion of infrastructure from this
area. The site is also currently cleared and much of the site is prepared for development.
Several alternatives were considered for the development of this site. They include the
no action alternative (filling no wetlands on the site), filling all the wetlands on the site,
and the chosen alternative of filling only the most insignificant wetlands on site using the
maximum practical measures of avoidance coupled with extensive wetland mitigation.
These alternatives are discussed below.
1. The no-action alternative would consist of not filling any of the wetlands on site
(jurisdictional or non jurisdictional). This alternative is not considered a feasible
alternative based primarily on logistical, engineering, planning and economical
considerations. With the exception of the larger wetlands and stream corridor in the
'rtr
v.
APPENDIX A
JIM BRYSON & ROLAND PUGH .
SLAB TOWN ROAD SITE
October 9, 2006
AVOIDANCE AND AC04IM17ATION
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters for this project were initially avoided to the
maximum extent practicable in consideration of the configuration of the site, engineering
requirements, transportation issues, facilities layout, sediment and erosion control, and
economics. The building layout was designed around the wetlands to the maximum
extent possible, and only the very upper reaches and most degraded of the wetlands on
site were considered for impact. Shared parking was used to the maximum extent to
reduce the amount of required parking. Low impact development (LID) techniques such
as pervious pavements, bioretention cells, grassed swales, and other methods to reduce
stormwater runoff will be employed. The most valuable of the on-site wetlands are
preserved with upland buffer. Wetland mitigation is proposed to compensate for
unavoidable impacts.
The steps that were taken to avoid wetland impacts were as follows: 1) Wetlands were
first delineated and approved by COE to determine extent and character of jurisdictional
wetlands. 2) The wetlands were then assessed to determine relative value... survey for
brook trout was conducted. 3) Planning and project design was initiated with the goal of
minimizing impact, and where impact was unavoidable, impacting only the most disjunct
and peripheral wetlands that were viewed to have the least value. 4) Additional best
management practices and low impact development techniques were then employed to
further protect the remaining on-site wetlands. 5) A comprehensive wetland mitigation
plan was then proposed to compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts. 6) Additional
design changes (reconfiguring buildings and parking) in accordance with comments from
NCWRC are proposed in this correspondence that further minimizes impacts, reducing
proposed impacts from 0.38 acres to 0.25 acres. Please see the attached revised plan
drawing.
The following checklist items, excerpted from the Addendum to PCN Applications
Required for Review under the Express Review Program, are addressed below:
Are there any stream crossings at angles less than 75 degrees or greater than 105 degrees?
There are no stream crossings associated with the project.
Are there any stream crossings that cross two streams above or at the confluence of those
streams? There are no stream crossings associated with the proposed project.
Are there any stream, wetland, water and/or buffer impacts other than perpendicular road
crossing near the edges of the property? The proposed wetland impacts (0.25 acres) is
the minimum amount of wetland impact in consideration of the configuration of the
site, engineering requirements, transportation issues, facilities layout, sediment
and erosion control, and economics. Please reference the above discussion of
to Q
ga
w
W
z ?'
W
U
CO W
R d
J J
QU
as
Q?
W Z
o>
as
0
zJ
aU
CL
o?
W
0 W
0 LL
am
U
0
z
o
gW3w
W
J
Cl)
U
O 00 13-
(L
0
Z
W
0
w
J

0
pa.
Q
z
O
m
w
a
2
a.
Y
w
U
O
z
CD

a
0)
X
aw
z
Q0
W
U
Cl)
00
C
w
a
a
w
w
LL
m
0
7
O
V
O
z
W
2
a.
i
a
Q
0
w
0
a
a
J
r
U
O
U
0
w
0
0
2
a
N
0
O
(a
J
J
LL
0
w
3
M
w
a
0
w
a.
Cl)

J
a

?1 V 1
Z z?H
OW ??O
?, w o o Z
fem. ? ' ? o
?OpQoo?
N ?
cn aV? Z?
R =< Z H
T aH 03?
(Wpa°Lo
o Om Zo ?
N 0 J OC ?
J
Q
WW
'v cl
z
W
rU)
W?m
W
?F?
NZtA
ii
?W
1 x J a
,d X D -
WUCL
3 1
O ;
H
N 1
0
z
_ U)
W
Q 2 Q
F-mp
Z I- p
Q
R p d
WK
D
_J
0
Cl)
CD
z
U)
X
W
I.
N
O
R
T
H
n
z,
rw
V
w
J
C
N
O
0
0
T
0
N
w
¢
O
2
a
¢ N
o 0
z
Y
tu- z z
O S
IL u? w

V
O
a I ?/
O
I
W
ZL Zip
Ol
HO???Q
--oZOwao?-,
Ow
_¢ V ? Z
g aJ
O??
ZOa°C?
or,
I? m o ?-a
W
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
hqp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The entire 10.46-acre site will be developed at this time. There will be no further development
on this site. Lands to the south, west, and east are currently developed. A small amount of land
along the northeast property boundary is currently undeveloped. We are not aware of any plans
to develop this area.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
It) -- g - 0 60
V Applicant/Agent's Signatfire Date
(Agent's signature I s valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
3.
Zone* (s uImpct are feet) Multiplier M Required
ti a on
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
4. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss stormwater
controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property. If
percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations demonstrating total proposed
impervious level. Currently, approximately one-half acre of the 10.46-acre site is impervious acreage.
Approximately 20 % of the site will remain undeveloped. A portion of the developed acreage will consist
of pervious parking areas. Stormwater management and sediment erosion control plans have not been
finalized at this time. however, preliminary plans are attached. Stormwater runoff will likely be
controlled by planted bio-retention cells with sand fitters. Subsurface retention will also be employed.
Low impact development (LID techniques will be considered to the maximum extent practical. DWQ
has agreed to condition the 401 certification to require final stormwater approval. A preliminary
stormwater mans eg ment plan is contained in Appendix D.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater generated within the development will be handle by the Tuckaseegee Water and
Sewer Authority, which has collection lines and infrastructure in the vicinity.
XIH. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No X
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No X
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No X
Page 12 of 13
Slab Town Road
Page 2 of 2
January 22, 2007
• Inclusion of plans for stormwater management and treatment which would
comply with 15A NCAC 02H .1000
• Plan details which would include 30' woody buffers from the top of bank or edge
of wetlands in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .1000. This must be
implemented without unnecessary removal of existing vegetation.
• Plan details which would include the above referenced stormwater treatment.
The submitted plan details state that bio-retention will be used, but also shows
underground stormwater structures. The details are not clear, and using the
guideline of bio-retention taking approximately 10% as much surface area as the
impervious area feeding it. A preliminary review does not indicate that sufficient
bio-retention exixts to trat the proposed impervious area.
• Mitigation which will comply with the published Mitigation Guidelines located at
http://www.saw.usace.army.miI/wetlands/Mitigation/permitting htm
As you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for this activity,
and work within waters of the state would be a violation of North Carolina General
Statutes and Administrative Code. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly at 919-733-1786 or Mr.
Kevin Barnett at 828-296-4657 if you have any questions this matter.
Sincerely,
Roger C. Edwards, Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
Division of Water Quality
C Klkhb
cc: D. Nick Roark, President
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
Victor Lofquist, P.E.
Lofquist and Associates, Inc.
11 Citrus Drive
Sylva, NC 28779
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ, Wetlands / 401 Permitting Unit
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 06-0784.Ver2.SlabTown Road. returned
0? W A TF9
O`J p Michael F. Easley, Governor
\ G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 22, 2007
DWQ Project # 06-0835 Version 2
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Jackson County
Jim Bryson & Roland Pugh 7006 2150 0005 2459 5106
Post Office Box 246
Highlands, NC 28741 119@@0Wq[2N
Subject Property: Slab Town Road Project Slab Town Road, Cashiers, NC JAN 2 9 2007
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION WATERQUALITy
Dear Mr. Bryson & Mr. Pugh:
On October 16, 2006, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application to
impact waters of the state. An additional information request was mailed on December
5, 2005. On December 13, 2006, the Division of Water Quality received preliminary
stormwater information from your consulting engineer. The Division of Water Quality
has determined that the submitted information in regards to your request to perform
work along wetlands and streams in the Cashiers area is incomplete. Therefore, we are
returning your application as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506. In
order for your project to be reviewed in the future, you must submit a complete
application along with the appropriate processing fee, including, but not limited to:
• A thorough discussion as to the steps taken to avoid or minimize impacts to
waters of the state. You must explore alternative site plans which would
minimize, or avoid, wetlands and water on site and perform an alternatives
analysis including a complete cost / benefit analysis as a part of any future
submittal
• Supporting documentation which would support a claim that this development
would not adversely impact brook trout in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506
(b)(2). A statement from the scientific or governmental community stating that
the project will not negatively impact the existing brook trout population should be
a part of this supporting documentation.
• Submission of a State Individual Stormwater Permit as required by 15A NCAC
02H .1007. As this project is 6 months into the planning and land grading is
currently underway onsite, you must apply for, and receive an Individual State
Stormwater Permit. The act of grading and filling on land which drains to
Outstanding Resource Waters without said Individual State Stormwater Permit is
a violation of the NC Administrative Code. Failure to apply can result in further
enforcement action.
401 Wetlands Certification 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/ncvretiands
NorthCarolina
N<7t1fP614
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Slab Town Road
Notice of Violation
Page 2 of 2
January 25, 2007
2. Please clearly explain why appropriate individual State Stormwater Permit was
not secured even though you were notified of the requirement to obtain said
Permit in the June 12, 2006 additional information request with respect to your
proposed wetland fill request.
3. Please provide a plan and timeline for making application to the Division of Water
Quality to obtain the above referenced individual state stormwater permit.
Violations, and any future violations are subject to civil penalty assessments of up to
$25,000.00 per day for each violation. In your written response, you must clearly
address the items listed above. Please see the attached addendum for details on the
previously listed permit requirements.
By copy of this Notice of Violation, I am hereby requesting that the County Building
Inspectors Office not issue any permits for this site until it is brought into compliance
with all applicable rules and regulations.
As you have no individual state stormwater to perform grading at this site, all activities
should cease immediately. Please call Kevin Barnett at 828-296-4657 if you have any
questions this matter.
Sincerely,
Roger C. Edwards, Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection
Division of Water Quality
C K/khb
cc: C. R. Styles, P.E., Resident Engineer
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Whittier Construction Office
Post Office Box 1040
Whittier, NC 28789
Dudley Orr
Phillips & Jordan, Inc.
Post Office Box 604
Robbinsville, NC 28771
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ, Wetlands / 401 Permitting Unit
Danny Smith, 401 / Stormwater Enforcement Unit
Linda Cable, Jackson County Planning Department
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
OFWATFR
Q Michael F. Easley, Governor
O t?' William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
'law Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 25, 2007
CERTIFIED MAIL Jackson County
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7006 2150 0005 2459 5229
Jim Bryson & Roland Pugh
Post Office Box 246
Highlands, NC 28741
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND RECCOMENDATION FOR CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
FAILURE TO OBTAIN INDIVIDUAL STATE STORMWATER PERMIT
Subject Property: Slab Town Road Project
Slab Town Road, Cashiers, NC o ral ? I t??111?
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION JAN 2 9 2007
Dear Mr. Bryson & Pugh : DENR - WATERQUALITY
MTLANDS AND STQRWATER BRANCH
On January 17, 2006, staff of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) determined that land
disturbing activities were occurring on site. By copy of the Erosion and Sediment
Control approval from the Jackson County Planning Department dated January 12,
2007, and in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .1003 (b) (2), you must first obtain an
individual state stormwater permit for any land disturbing activity which receives an
erosion control plan approval prior to performing the land disturbing activity.
Requested Response
This Office requests that you respond to this letter in writing within 15 days of Receipt of
this Notice. Your response should be sent to the following:
• Kevin Barnett, of the Division of Water Quality, Asheville Regional Office
(at the letterhead address)
and to
• Mr. Danny Smith of the DWQ NPS Assistance and Compliance Oversight
Unit 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
Your response should address each the following items:
1. Please explain when construction (excavation, filling, grading, grubbing, and
clearing) began at the site.
401 Wetlands Certification 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/ncwetlands
NorthCarolina
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/)yM/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No X
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify V Yes ? No X
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Page 11 of 13
were minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The amount of wetlands filled is the
smallest amount that will accomplish the basic and overall project purpose. See additional
information supporting avoidance and minimization, and "no practical alternative" contained in
Appendix A.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
hqp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.htrnl.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The proposed mitigation will consist of wetland and stream preservation, enhancement by
buffering, and wetland creation. Approx. 430 linear feet of stream and 1.22 acres of
wetlands will be preserved with a variable-width upland buffer of approx. 0.5 acres. The
minimum upland buffer width will be 30 $. Additionally, 0.19 acres of wetlands will be
created. See the attached detailed wetland mitt aeon plan contained in Appendix B. Also
reference a discussion on brook trout and associated mitigation contained in Appendix C.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
Page 10 of 13
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Wateabody
(W pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres):
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.25
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.25
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes X No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area.
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Impacts to wetlands on the site
Page 9 of 13
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Place fill material in 0.25 acres of
wetlands. See attached plans.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Wetland fill Fill Freshwater, cleared No 50 0.25

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.25
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 1.60
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multi 1 length X width, then divide b 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial Intermittent?
? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
Page 8 of 13
i
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
overall project consists of constructing a commercial development with associated
infrastructure and parking. The development will include a supermarket, retail stores, office
buildings, and a cinema. Site work will be accomplished with tackhoes, backhoes,
bulldozers, tractors, and other equipment appropriate for creating building sites, installing
utility lines, and constructing roadways. The proposed work (subject PM consists of filling
0.25 acres of wetlands to construct buL_--gs and parking areas. See the attached plan
drawings and plans provided in Appendix D.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The basic project purpose is to place fill
materials in wetlands to construct a supermarket, office buildings, and attendant parking
The overall projectpurpose is to construct high quality, commercial development to service
the community of Cashiers.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No previous hermits have been requested for this site. A iurisdictional determination was
completed by Ecological Associates and has been approved by USACE, Asheville. See attached
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination and accompanM wetland survey. A PCN was
initially submitted to DENR/COE on 5/5/06. Revisions were made based on comments from
NCWRC, and DENR. DENR requested a resubmittal, which is contained herein.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No other permits are anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
Page 7 of 13

Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Slab Town Road
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Jackson Count PIN 7572-02-9163
4. Location
County: Jackson Nearest Town: Cashiers
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Slab Town Road Site
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Cashiers, NC, go _
Weston HWY 64, approx..6 mi. on Hwy 64 from the 107/64 intersection (stop light) to Slab
Town Rd. Site is on the A. (north) adjacent to Hwy 64 and Slab Town Rd.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35'12.728" ON 83'7.763" °W
6. Property size (acres): 10.46 Acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Headwater stream of Cashiers Lake
8. River Basin: Savannah
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at hqp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is higWy disturbed, cleared upland with one
a
perennial stream corridor and one small intermittent tribes. Site was previously used as
stone/mulch/retail lumberyard and later clear-cut of all vegq on. Surrounding land is a
combination of commercial and residential. See additional information contained in Section
1.0 of Appendix B.
Page 6 of 13
Q'
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. V a- O to- 01 $ 4
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
PAY'MI'ENT
RECEIVED
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
X Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
X 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina`s twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top ofpage 2 for ftirthef details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information O C T 1 6 2006
Name: Jim Bryson and Roland Pugh DENR - WATER QUALiTy
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 246, Highlands, North Carolina 29741 M EU0AND $T1TM BRANCH
Attn: Mr. Jim Bryson
Telephone Number: 828-526-3775 Fag Number: 828-526-0430
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Nick Roark
Company Affiliation: Ecological Associates, Inc.
Mailing Address: 4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
Telephone Number: 843-559-4127 Fax Number: 843-559-1564
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
III. Project Information
Page 5 of 13
.f .. J
V 1 0 to - O `) S Lf
ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ecological • Environmental • Natural Resources Consulting
4676 Bears Bluff Road • Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
[phone] • Fax [phone] • e-mail [e-mail]
October 9, 2006
Ms. Cindy Karoly
NCDENR - DWQ
1650 Mail Service Center ?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 P ??
ry i i ; ?i
SUBJECT: DWQ Project No. 06-0784 RECEIVED
Slab Town Road - Jim Bryson & Roland Pough
Cashiers, Jackson County, NC
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find attached a resubmittal of the PCN that was originally submitted to DENR and the
Corps of Engineers in May 2006. We were recently asked by the Asheville Office to resubmit the
PCN with a second $200 processing fee in order to continue to have this application processed.
We have enclosed five copies of the resubmittal and the $200 processing fee. We have also
provided a copy of this PCN to the Corps of Engineers, Asheville Office, the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, Waynesville Office, and Mr. Kevin Barnett of your Asheville Office.
Please process this application as quickly as possible. Please call me at [phone]. Thank
you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,

D. Nick Roark
Ecologist, President, EA, Inc.
Attachments
oc7 i e zaae
C: Jim Bryson - Applicant
.g Q?.AUTY
I
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. U a O Le - D 18 14
(If anv narticnlar item is not annlicahle to this nroiect please enter "Not Annlicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
Per iM NT
RECEIVED
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
X Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
X 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further detai check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
D
1. Owner/Applicant Information OCT 6 ??®6
Name: Jim Bryson and Roland Pugh DENR WAtgR ?uRG1
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 246, Highlands, North Carolina 29 f0S'"WQ
Attn: Mr. Jim Bryson
Telephone Number: 828-526-3 775 Fax Number: 828-526-0430
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Nick Roark
Company Affiliation: Ecolomical Associates, Inc.
Mailing Address: 4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
Telephone Number: 843-559-4127 Fax Number: 843-559-1564
E-mail Address: ecologyp&
III. Project Information
Page 5 of 13
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers fiill-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Slab Town Road
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Jackson Count PIN 7572-02-9163
4. Location
County: Jackson Nearest Town: Cashiers
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Slab Town Road Site
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Cashiers, NC, go
West on HWY 64, approx..6 mi. on Hwy 64 from the 107/64 intersection ( op light) to Slab
Town Rd. Site is on the rt. (north) adjacent to Hwy 64 and Slab Town Rd.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35'12.728" ON 83'7.763" °W
6. Property size (acres): 10.46 Acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Headwater stream of Cashiers Lake
8. River Basin: Savannah
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at hrip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is highly disturbed, cleared upland with one
perennial stream corridor and one small intermittent tributary. Site was previously used as a
stone/mulch/retail lumberyard and later clear-cut of all vegetation. Surrounding land is a
combination of commercial and residential. See additional information contained in Section
1.0 of Appendix B.
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
overall project consists of constructing a commercial development with associated
infrastructure andMking`The development will include a supermarket, retail stores, office
buildings and a cinema. Site work will be accomplished with trackhoes, backhoes,
bulldozers tractors and other equipment appropriate for creating building sites, installing
utility lines and constructing roadways. The proposed work (subject PCN) consists of filling
0.25 acres of wetlands to construct buildings and parking areas. See the attached plan
drawings and plans provided in Appendix D.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The basic project purpose is to place fill
materials in wetlands to construct a supermarket, office buildings, and attendant parking:
The overall project purpose is to construct high _qualitL commercial development to service
the community of Cashiers.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No previous permits have been requested for this site. A jurisdictional determination was
completed by Ecological Associates and has been approved by USACE Asheville. See attached
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination and accompanying wetland survey. A PCN was
initially submitted to DENR/COE on 5/5/06. Revisions were made based on comments from
NCWRC and DENR DENR requested a resubmittal which is contained herein.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No other permits are anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
Page 7 of 13
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Place fill material in 0.25 acres of
wetlands. See attached plans.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
sevarately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
Wetland fill Fill Freshwater, cleared No 50 0.25

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.25
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 1.60
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
Page 8 of 13
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
( applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres):
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.25
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.25
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes X No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Impacts to wetlands on the site
Page 9 of 13
were minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The amount of wetlands filled is the
smallest amount that will accomplish the basic and overall project purpose. See additional
information supporting avoidance and minimization, and "no practical alternative" contained in
Appendix A.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC. 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
httl2://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The proposed mitigation will consist of wetland and stream preservation, enhancement by
buffering, and wetland creation. Approx. 430 linear feet of stream and 1.22 acres of
wetlands will be preserved with a variable-width upland buffer of approx. 0.5 acres. The
minimum upland buffer width will be 30 ft. Additionall y, 0.19 acres of wetlands will be
created. See the attached detailed wetland mitigation plan contained in Appendix B. Also
reference a discussion on brook trout and associated mitigation contained in Appendix C.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
Page 10 of 13
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at hqp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wM/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No X
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No El
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify V Yes ? No X
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Page 11 of 13
3.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
*--Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
4. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss stormwater
controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property. If
percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations demonstrating total proposed
impervious level. Currently. approximately one-half acre of the 10.46-acre site is impervious acreage.
Approximately 20 % of the site will remain undeveloped. A portion of the developed acreage will consist
of pervious parking areas Stormwater management and sediment erosion control plans have not been
finalized at this time however prelimiM plans are attached. Stormwater runoff will likely be
controlled by planted bio-retention cells with sand filters. Subsurface retention will also be employed.
Low impact development (LID) techniques will be considered to the maximum extent practical. DWQ
has agreed to condition the 401 certification to require final stormwater approval. A preliminary
stormwater management plan is contained in Appendix D.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater generated within the development will be handle by the Tuckaseegge Water and
Sewer AuthoritX, which has collection lines and infrastructure in the vicinity.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No X
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No X
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No X
Page 12 of 13
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
hqp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The entire 10.46-acre site will be developed at this time. There will be no further development
on this site. Lands to the south, west, and east are currently developed. A small amount of land
along the northeast pro boundary is currently undeveloped. We are not aware of any plans
to develop this area.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

U Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature I s valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
J
Q
WZ<
Ow w
?
v a ai
H
Z
W
?m
LLJ
0 W
?LU W
(V Z fn
? rr
C
?
?W
LLJ
1 ? J d
w U o.
3 1
O ?
H
0
Z
M: CO
LLI
QQU
J = Q
}o
m?
ZF O
Q
Boa
w 9Q
0
Q
0
J_
O
U)
C)
Z
F-
U)
X
W
0
i N
O
T
H o
0
0
N
D
Z
W
W
J
w
F-
Q
O
2
a
Q p
D
Z Y
co ? U
W Z Z
O
CWW
i
O
T?
V 1
O
a
O
I
TW
V 1
W
ZW ZOO
M? UQ
O
61.10 Z z
?Lu
Oa-
? oc o
H ? Zz
I? m o ?)
W ?
-` 4
U
z?
i.U
W
z?
?LU
tia W
W a

uj Z
co LU
o>
a.
aa

z
Lqu
LL U.
0
LL M
Q
<L
e°
i_$k.f
!f1 ,j -1
mLU
0LO
Cl-
r
iv..3
fez
a¦¦
0

ct `D
c;
CL W a
< 0
s
Lt ?i 2

5
2
z ?-
-

o L
o
om
ix f
3 t
.
0 in W W Q Q Q Cc
z Q)
Ea ?? 0 F
a !!! a

-I
--?
_toil
7-4 40441;
I
W
r Z
oet
4 Ac-
s
gL n
CA
APPENDIX A
JIM BRYSON & ROLAND PUGH
SLAB TOWN ROAD SITE
October 9, 2006
AVOIDANCE AND AHN]MZATION
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters for this project were initially avoided to the
maximum extent practicable in consideration of the configuration of the site, engineering
requirements, transportation issues, facilities layout, sediment and erosion control, and
economics. The building layout was designed around the wetlands to the maximum
extent possible, and only the very upper reaches and most degraded of the wetlands on
site were considered for impact. Shared parking was used to the maximum extent to
reduce the amount of required parking. Low impact development (LID) techniques such
as pervious pavements, bioretention cells, grassed swales, and other methods to reduce
stormwater runoff will be employed. The most valuable of the on-site wetlands are
preserved with upland buffer. Wetland mitigation is proposed to compensate for
unavoidable impacts.
The steps that were taken to avoid wetland impacts were as follows: 1) Wetlands were
first delineated and approved by COE to determine extent and character of jurisdictional
wetlands. 2) The wetlands were then assessed to determine relative value... survey for
brook trout was conducted. 3) Planning and project design was initiated with the goal of
minimizing impact, and where impact was unavoidable, impacting only the most disjunct
and peripheral wetlands that were viewed to have the least value. 4) Additional best
management practices and low impact development techniques were then employed to
further protect the remaining on-site wetlands. 5) A comprehensive wetland mitigation
plan was then proposed to compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts. 6) Additional
design changes (reconfiguring buildings and parking) in accordance with comments from
NCWRC are proposed in this correspondence that further minimizes impacts, reducing
proposed impacts from 0.38 acres to 0.25 acres. Please see the attached revised plan
drawing.
The following checklist items, excerpted from the Addendum to PCN Applications
Required for Review under the Express Review Program, are addressed below:
Are there any stream crossings at angles less than 75 degrees or greater than 105 degrees?
There are no stream crossings associated with the project.
Are there any stream crossings that cross two streams above or at the confluence of those
streams? There are no stream crossings associated with the proposed project.
Are there any stream, wetland, water and/or buffer impacts other than perpendicular road
crossing near the edges of the property? The proposed wetland impacts (0.25 acres) is
the minimum amount of wetland impact in consideration of the configuration of the
site, engineering requirements, transportation issues, facilities layout, sediment
and erosion control, and economics. Please reference the above discussion of
avoidance and minimization, and the following discussion on no practical
alternatives.
• Can the stream be relocated as a natural channel design as opposed to culverted or
otherwise filled? Impacts on this site are generally confined to wetlands associated with
the very upper reaches of intermittent streams. There are no options to relocate streams
on this site.
• Is any single stream crossed more than once? There are no stream crossings associated
with the project.
• Can property access routes be moved or reduced to avoid stream, wetland, water and
buffer impacts? Access into the property does not involve wetland/waters impacts.
Access throughout the site, particularly the northern portion of the site, which contains
wetlands and streams, has been designed to avoid and reduce impacts.
• Can a building, parking lot, etc be realigned to avoid impacts? Buildings and parking lots
were originally designed to minimize wetland/waters impacts (original proposed impact
was 0.38 acres). Impacts were further reduced by redesigning building layout and
parking to effect a reduction from 0.38 acres to 0.25 acres of wetland impact.
• Can the site layout be reconfigured to avoid impacts? Same comment as above. We do
not believe that the site layout can be reconfigured to further reduce impacts.
• Can headwalls or steeper side slopes be used to avoid/minimize impacts? A combination
of headwalls and/or 1:1 slopes are currently being utilized to minimize wetland impact
and provide the required 30-ft upland buffer adjacent to preserved wetlands.
• Can a retaining wall be used to avoid/minimize impacts? Same comment as above.
• Can cul de sacs be used in place of a crossing? The use of cul-de-sacs is not applicable
to this project.
• Can lots be reshaped or have shared driveways to avoid impacts? Building and parking
areas have been reshaped several times to affect the least amount of wetland impact.
NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVES
As an upscale, retailloffice/entertainment complex, the project relies on quality individual
businesses that are clustered together and anchored by a major recognized anchor tenant. The
businesses function as a whole to create the multi-use development complex. Alternative
properties for this project were not considered as the property is already owned by the applicant.
Additionally, the proposed site is ideally suited for the proposed development, as the size,
configuration, and location are optimal. The project also takes full advantage of existing public
roads, particularly N.C. Highway 64 and Slab Town Road. A large proportion of the project site
has previously been used for development, and allows for expansion of infrastructure from this
area. The site is also currently cleared and much of the site is prepared for development.
Several alternatives were considered for the development of this site. They include the
no action alternative (filling no wetlands on the site), filling all the wetlands on the site,
and the chosen alternative of filling only the most insignificant wetlands on site using the
maximum practical measures of avoidance coupled with extensive wetland mitigation.
These alternatives are discussed below.
1. The no-action alternative would consist of not filling any of the wetlands on site
(jurisdictional or non jurisdictional). This alternative is not considered a feasible
alternative based primarily on logistical, engineering, planning and economical
considerations. With the exception of the larger wetlands and stream corridor in the
2
2
3.
northern portion of the site, the wetlands on the site are small, disjunct areas that are
the terminal portions of extended wetland fingers. The arrangement and
configuration of these small wetland areas does not allow for any logical arrangement
of commercial or residential products around these areas. The roads and
infrastructure to access the site would be so convoluted that the resulting master plan
would be unacceptable from a planning, engineering, and transportation standpoint.
The overall result would be a project that is not economically feasible. The no-action
alternative would result in severely limited development on this site, and no
associated mitigation or stormwater management improvements, which we believe to
be important and positive aspects of the project. The wetland creation and
enhancement opportunities and the overall water quality/stormwater management
improvements that are expected to occur would not result from the no-action
alternative.
The alternative of filling all the wetlands on the site is not considered a feasible
alternative based primarily on environmental considerations. This alternative would
maximize economic gain, but would result in a high level of wetland impacts. This
alternative would not take advantage of the on-site wetland creation and enhancement
opportunities that are available, and would not provide the necessary water quality
improvements to on-site and downstream wetlands and streams.
The selected alternative, to fill only the most marginal wetlands on the site and
provide extensive, valuable mitigation, is the only feasible alternative. This
alternative provides a project that is feasible from an engineering, planning, and
economic standpoint, and still results in minimal unavoidable wetland impacts (0.25
acres). We believe that the minimal amount of unavoidable impact to what are
clearly marginal in conjunction with valuable, far-reaching mitigation delivers the
best possible developmental scenario for this site.
3

APPENDIX B
SLAB TOWN ROAD
ON-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
May 1, 2006
Revised July 3, 2006
Revised October 9, 2006
The Slab Town Road project proposes to fill 0.25 acres of wetlands for commercial
development of a 10.46-acre site. A comprehensive on-site wetland mitigation plan has
been developed to compensate for these unavoidable impacts. The plan is designed in
accordance with USACE guidelines for wetland mitigation found at
http•//www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/mitigation/pennitting.html. We believe the
plan contains all the elements of a SMART plan - specific, measurable, attainable,
reasonable, and practical. The plan consists of on-site wetland creation, wetland and
stream enhancement by buffering, and wetland and stream preservation. The conditions
of the wetlands that will be impacted and the individual elements of the comprehensive
wetland mitigation plan are discussed below. The Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Checklist is contained as Attachment A.
1.0 Existing Conditions of Wetlands Proposed for Impact
The 10.46-acre Slab Town Road site contains approximately 1.60 acres of
wetlands and approximately 430 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams
(included within the 1.60 acres of wetlands) under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Please reference Attachment B containing a
drawing of existing conditions. The wetlands throughout the site are relatively
disturbed, as they have all been clear-cut and portions previously impacted by
adjacent upland development. The streams on the site consist of one perennial
stream and one intermittent tributary to the perennial stream. The perennial
stream is approximately six feet wide and six to 10 inches deep, with a substrate
of course sand and small gravel. The stream has a limited amount of structure and
a modest amount of siltation. The perennial stream supports juvenile brook trout.
The hydrology of the intermittent stream is flashy, being driven primarily by
stormwater runoff from the surrounding uplands. The wetlands that are proposed
for filling are typically the very upper terminal extensions of the site wetlands,
and have been variously impacted by adjacent development. There is typically no
discernable stream channel within the areas proposed for impact, and these areas
are often completely dry.
1? .
2.0 Foundation of the SMART Mitigation Plan
The following elements of the SMART mitigation plan are specific, measurable,
attainable, reasonable, and trackable.
2.1 Goals
The overall goal of the Slab Town Road mitigation project is to replace
the lost functions and values associated with 0.25 acres of wetlands by a
comprehensive mitigation plan of wetland creation, wetland enhancement
by upland buffering, and wetland/stream preservation. Specific goals of
the mitigation project include:
• Create 0.19 acres of wetlands from uplands that meet USACE
criteria for identification of wetlands, and that will integrate
effectively with adjacent unaltered wetlands.
• Apply added protection to existing unaltered wetlands/streams and
created wetlands by establishing 0.05 acres of adjacent upland
buffer.
• Insure long-term protection of the preserved areas (existing
unaltered wetlands/streams, created wetlands, and upland buffers)
by placing stringent restrictive covenants on these areas.
• Evaluate the success of the mitigation plan by conducting five
years of mitigation monitoring.
2.2 Target Functions
The wetlands that will be lost are described in Section 1.0 above. The
primary functions that are associated with these wetlands include
production of detritus and dissolved organic nutrients through growth and
decay of vascular plants, provision of habitat for wetland dependent plant
and animal species, and water quality enhancement functions through
assimilation of excess nutrients and filtration of potential pollutants.
These primary functions will be satisfactorily replaced by the proposed
on-site wetland mitigation in conjunction with improved design and
management of the site.
2.3 Structure
The structural elements of the wetland mitigation area are the vegetation,
soils, and hydrology. These three structural elements will be considered
in the design and construction of the mitigation area (see Section 3.0 of the
Wetland Mitigation Plan), and will be monitored (see Section 4.0) during
the five-year monitoring study.
2
k'
3.0 On-site Wetland Mitigation
The on-site wetland mitigation consists of wetland creation, wetland and stream
enhancement by upland buffering, and wetland and stream preservation. The
mitigation areas are shown on the proposed conditions drawing contained in
Attachment B, and are described in the following sections.
3.1 Wetland Creation
There are four small areas of uplands that are adjacent to the preserved
wetlands that are good candidates for wetland creation. The four areas are
all clear-cut upland areas (the entire tract was clear cut within the last five
years) that have been impacted to some degree by previous development.
We believe that the proposed wetland creation will integrate effectively
with existing wetlands to provide an overall improvement to the protected
area. The wetland creation will be accomplished in two phases - grading
the wetland creation areas to appropriate elevations, and wetland
vegetation planting. The structural elements of vegetation, soils, and
hydrology will be considered in both phases of the wetland creation
project.
3.1.1 Grading
Grading of the four wetland creation areas is intended to integrate
the created wetland areas into the adjacent preserved wetlands.
The areas designated for wetland creation will be graded to an
elevation that is consistent with the adjacent preserved wetlands, as
established by site survey. Typically, this is done by establishing a
prototypical wetland area within the adjacent unaltered wetlands,
establishing this elevation by survey, and then grading the created
wetland areas to the established elevation. The prototypical
wetland area will also be evaluated for soils and hydrology in order
to duplicate these parameters in the created wetlands. Earthen
material from the creation areas will be removed by excavators,
bulldozers, or other appropriate equipment, with all resultant
material being deposited on nearby uplands. The wetland gradient
and substrate composition will be reestablished consistent with the
wetland characteristics in the immediately adjacent wetlands (the
prototypical wetland). Some backfilling of suitable material may
be required. As a practical measure, the site is graded to the design
elevation first, and then additional excavation and backfill is done
in appropriate amounts where necessary as determined by field
conditions. Suitable backfill materials will be obtained from de-
mucked wetland areas authorized for filling. The created wetland
edge will be tapered into existing upland slopes where appropriate.
Upon conclusion of grading, the creation sites will immediately be
3
s'
stabilized as appropriate and seeded with a perennial seed mixture
containing a predominance of native wetland species. The grading
will be performed by a contractor selected by the owner.
Essentially, the grading phase will be designed and constructed to
duplicate the structural elements of soils and hydrology within the
adjacent, unaltered wetlands, particularly the prototypical wetland.
Ecological Associates personnel will assist the site engineer and/or
the owner with environmental construction management to achieve
the proper grades and hydrological zone.
3.1.2 Wetland Planting
Subsequent to grading and stabilization, the prepared site will be
planted with wetland trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation.
Vegetation planting will be accomplished by Ecological
Associates, and will generally be conducted during the dormant
season (January - March, inclusive). Wetland trees and shrubs
will be planted randomly throughout the creation area on six to
eight-foot centers. Planted trees will be nursery grown one-year
old bare-root seedlings. Shrubs will be either nursery grown or
transplants from nearby wetland areas. Herbaceous vegetation will
be planted randomly throughout the creation area on approximately
three-foot centers. Tree, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation
selected for planting will depend to some extent upon availability,
however, planted species will be those that are known to
predominate in adjacent and nearby wetland areas and will
generally be selected from the list contained in Table 1 (attached).
Local propagules will be utilized to the maximum extent
practicable - nursery stock will be obtained from nurseries within
200 miles north and south of the site. Receipts will be retained and
included in monitoring reports.
In addition to planting in the wetland creation sites, planting along
the existing preserved streams will be accomplished in an effort to
improve brook trout habitat by providing additional shading of the
stream. Appropriate wetland trees and shrubs will be planted on
approximately 12 to 15-ft. centers along both the perennial and
intermittent streams within the preservation area. Trees and shrubs
planted along the existing streams will typically be of large stock
(five to ten-gallon potted plants) to provide immediate shading
benefit.
3.2 Wetland/Stream Enhancement By Upland Buffering
There are approximately 1.35 acres of preserved wetlands and 430 linear
feet of preserved streams (included within the on the 1.35 acres of
4
preserved wetlands) that will be enhanced by the placement of a variable
width undisturbed buffer of approximately 0.58 acres around the
wetland/stream preservation area. The minimum upland buffer width will
be 30 feet - maximum buffer width will be in excess of 100 feet. The
upland buffer will remain in an undisturbed condition with prohibitions
including construction, land disturbance/grading, timber harvesting, and
cutting of vegetation. Selective planting will be conducted within the
upland buffers, which are currently in an early successional stage, to
achieve the desired upland tree and shrub species composition. Provisions
may be allowed for future utility lines to cross the protected area. The
upland buffers and the preserved wetlands/streams that they surround will
be protected through a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant properly
recorded with the Jackson County RMC Office. We believe that the
proposed upland buffers are an important element of the mitigation plan
and that they perform physical and biological functions that are integral in
the protection and maintenance of the target aquatic resources. We also
believe that the upland buffer areas are under a demonstrable threat, and
without protection would be subject to significant degradation.
3.3 Wetland/Stream Preservation
All wetlands and streams on the Slab Town Road site that are not
proposed for filling will be preserved. The preserved wetlands/streams
(1.35 acres), and the upland buffers (0.58 acres) that surround them will be
protected through a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant properly recorded
with the Jackson County RMC Office.
4.0 Compliance Monitoring
compliance monitoring within the mitigation areas will consist of vegetation,
soils, and hydrological monitoring (the three structural elements) in the wetland
creation sites, and photographic documentation in preservation areas. Vegetation,
soils, and hydrological monitoring will be conducted for five years, and will take
place during the late summer-early fall of each monitoring year. Yearly reports
will be provided to the USACE and NCDENR by December 31" of each
monitoring year. Quantitative monitoring will take place in the wetland creation
areas, and qualitative monitoring will be conducted within the wetland/stream and
upland buffer preservation areas.
The quantitative monitoring methodology for the wetland creation sites is adapted
from the quadrant sampling methodology as described for comprehensive wetland
determination in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands'. Permanent baseline transects will be established across
' Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. USACE, USEPA, USFWS and USDA-SCS. Washington D.C
Cooperative Technical Publication. 77pp. plus appendices.
5
the long axis of each wetland creation areas, and 30-foot (15-foot radius) circular
sample plots will be randomly established along this transect. A minimum of two
30-foot circular sample plots will be established in each creation site. The
location of the baseline transects and individual sample plots will be permanently
marked.
Trees and shrubs will be sampled within the sample plots by counting individual
stems. Trees and shrubs will be identified to species, and trees/shrubs per acre
(TPA) determined for each species in all plots. Herbaceous vegetation will be
sampled by identifying the dominant species present and estimating percent
coverage of all species combined within the 30-foot plot. Photographs of the site
will be taken across the vegetation sample points.
Hydrological monitoring consisted of measuring the depth to soil water table in
monitoring wells in each of the four wetland creation areas and in two reference
sites. Monitoring will conducted weekly during late winter-early spring
(February-March, inclusive), when flooding and/or saturation are expected to be
highest. During the balance of the year measurements will be taken monthly.
Measurements will be taken in the field from soil water table to the top of the well
casing, and later corrected to depth from ground surface to soil water table.
Qualitative monitoring within the wetland preservation and upland buffer areas
will consist of yearly pedestrian surveys to document any changes that may have
occurred (or to document that there have been no encroachments into the
preservation areas). The pedestrian surveys will be supported with photographs
taken from permanent photographic stations throughout the area. At the end of
three years of monitoring and at the end of the monitoring period (five years), the
wetland creation areas will be evaluated in accordance with the 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual2 to determine if wetland criteria have been satisfied.
5.0 Reference Areas
Two reference areas have been selected to assist in evaluating the success of
wetland creation. Evaluation of the reference areas will be used in conjunction
with specific success criteria to determine the relative success of wetland creation.
In the instant case the wetland creation area is directly connected to other
unaltered preserved on site wetlands thereby providing a suitable on site
reference area. The on-site reference area will be the same as the prototypical
wetland discussed in Section 3.1.1 above used to establish grade and substrate.
The reference area and the creation sites have homogeneous soil conditions, a
shared water supply, and exhibit a similar early succcessional vegetation
community. Comparison with the on-site reference area will be one of several
evaluative success criteria.
2 USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Wetlands Research Program
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. 92pp plus appendices.
6
In addition to the on-site reference area, a second reference area will be located in
adjacent wetlands just to the northeast of the project site. This reference area will
be located in wetlands that share the same geomorphology and hydrology as the
creation areas, however this reference area is a mature, stabile system that has not
been recently clear-cut. We believe this reference area will provide a valuable
site for a long-term comparison of the created and unaltered clear-cut wetlands to
the adjacent mature uncut wetlands.
6.0 Success Criteria
The following performance standards, in conjunction with comparison to the
reference areas, will be used to determine the success of wetland creation.
• Mean density of 320 trees/shrubs per acre (TPA), including planted and
volunteer species, which match the dominant species of the on-site
reference area...
• A minimum of 75 percent survival of planted tree/shrub species...
• Establishment of 75 percent coverage of woody and herbaceous
groundcover, which includes at least 50 percent of species common to the
on-site reference area...
• Positive evidence of hydric soils.. .
• Depth to soil water table within at least 12 inches of the ground surface for
21 consecutive days during the growing season, or comparable to within
10 percent of the on-site reference area.
7.0 Responsible Parties
Ecological Associates, Inc. will set up the monitoring program, and will be
responsible for yearly mitigation monitoring, and submitting reports to the
USACE and regional and central office of NCDWQ. Financial responsibility for
the mitigation will be by the owner of the tract as follows:
• Jim Bryson & Roland Pough - P.O. Box 246 - Highlands, NC 29741
[phone]
In the event that either the entire tract or parcels thereof are sold, the financial
responsibility for the mitigation will run with the land, i.e., the owner of the land
is ultimately responsible for the mitigation.
8.0 Contingency Plan
The contingency plan for the wetland creation will be to conduct additional
planting of wetland vegetation to satisfy the specified success criteria regarding
wetland vegetation, and/or regrade the site to satisfy specified hydrological and/or
soil parameters.
7
9.0 Schedule
The wetland mitigation will be completed prior to conducting the wetland impacts
authorized by the permit. The wetland and stream preservation areas will be
established and identified on the ground immediately upon permit issuance. The
wetland creation will be conducted as soon as practical after permit issuance (but
prior to wetland impacts). Mitigation monitoring will commence during the later
part of the first growing season following implementation of mitigation.
10.0 Wetland Ratios
Acreage ratios are used to determine if the proposed mitigation is adequate. The
mitigation project uses creation, enhancement, and preservation. The following
table shows how the acreage of mitigation is determined.
Creation @ 3:1 0.19 acres of creation generates 0.063 acres
Enhancement @ 4:1 1.22 acres enhanced generates 0.305 acres
Preservation @ 10:1 1.22 acres preserved generates 0.122 acres
Total Mitigation 0.535 acres
The proposed project results in 0.25 acres of wetland impact. At the specified
ratios the proposed mitigation generates 0.535 acres of mitigation. We believe the
proposed mitigation adequately compensates for the proposed impact.
11.0 Summary
The 10.46-acre Slab Town Road site contains approximately 2.60 acres of
wetlands and 430 linear feet of jurisdictional streams. The proposed project
results in the unavoidable impact to 0.25 acres of wetlands. An attempt has been
made throughout the planning and design phases of this project to avoid to the
maximum extent practicable impacts to jurisdictional streams. On-site mitigation
for these unavoidable impacts consists of wetland creation (0.19 acres), stream
and wetlands enhancement by buffering (0.58 acres), and wetland and stream
preservation (1.35 acres). The proposed mitigation will substantially improve the
quality and function of the remaining wetlands and streams on site, and create a
valuable, contiguous reserve of wetlands, streams and upland buffer within this
watershed.
8
Table 1. Trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation suitable for planting in
wetland creation areas at the Slab Town Road site.
TREES
• Red maple (Acer rubrum)
• Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
• Sweet birch (Betula lenta)
• White pine (Pinus strobus)
• Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
• River birch (Betula nigra)
• Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
SHRUBS
• Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
• Great laurel (Rhododendron maximum)
• Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
• Black willow (Salix nigra)
• Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
• Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
• Highland doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana)
• Northern wild rasin (Viburnum nudum)
HERBACEOUS VEGETATION
• Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea)
• Asters (Asters spp.)
• Jewel weed (Impatiens capensis)
• Goldenrod (Solidago spp.)
• St. Johns wort (Hypericum spp.)
• Soft rush (Juncus effusus)
• Smartweed (Polygonium spp.)
• Wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus)
• New York fern (Thelypteris sp.)
• Sedges (Carex spp.)
• Joe-Pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum)
• Thoroughwort (Eupatorium spp.)
9

300ct02
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Considerations
Action ID:
SiteBank.Name: - `>4:663 7?t t) /LJ AD,. A) eT- ,14212 11i1r, - e,' Lf/6 -/2-5,

Coordinates (&Cmd degrees): L Wa& (ea, 34 $Mq): 3 6' r Z. Z Z b Longiade (=.-n-5 I1):.'93'. & 7 A0 3
Method location determined (=L-): GPS<E Oeho (AcrW) PhOWGIIS over GIs Othw
USES Quid Sheet: _Z2?6&6 w6
Soil Survey Sheet No.:
Prepared By: /C/L 86412/L
r ?
Dat
I. Introduction -
A. Is a permit required for this project? NO
B. Type of Mitigation (circle): Restoration / reation: Enhancement / Preservation
C. Identify Wetland Community Type (Shafale and Weakley):
D. Will Threatened or Endangered Species or designated
Critical Habitats be impacted?
YE O j
E. Do any Cultural Resource issues exist on the site? YES
F. Do any HazITog issues exist on the site? YEV. O
G. Has a wetland. determination been undertaken and verified? <!6?NO _
300ctO2
H. Foundation of the Mitigation Plan
2. Are plantings listed to species? S / O
3. Are local (200 miles north/south) propagules to be planted
and verified by nursery certificate? NO
4. Have diversity and density of species within the Reference
Ecosystem been considered. in the plan? ?. _? NO
5. Has consideration been given to planting the wetland upland
interface with suitable transition zone species?
`J NO
. Describe the

C. Vegetation
1. Was a Reference Ecosystem (RE) report prepared? ' ` YES
OOct02
D. Soils
1. Have site soils been mapped? (VIES NO
2. List Soil Series and Textures: 'lli, Gtlf?T?Sf?d? eel 'S
3. Are soils types appropriate for the target wetland? ES NO
VeI2-
6. Are the fertility results within the standards for the plantings? YES / NO
Describe results/amendments required:
. If PC Cropland, has site been evaluated for plow pans, field crowns, ?/
tile drainage system! YES / NO NIX
Describe findings:
4. Fertility sampling undertaken in the RE? (Attach Report) YES(!?7
5. Fertility sampling undertaken in the mitigation site? (Attach Report) YES
8. Is disking proposed after grading and/or prior to planting? YES
9. Is there a grading plan? (Attach) (ONO
300ct02
E. Hydrolo y
2. List the hydrologic inputs: J' mo CGt1G b01- 1''LIG-L-
a. For groundwater driven systems, will monitoring wells be installed pursua to the
most recent ERDC Technical Note? / NO
b. For surface water driven systems, will flood gauges be installed? YES / NO ?I rl
Describe type/methodology:
5. Were the principles of HGM or other classification system considered? YE NO
Describe:
6. Will the hydrologic regime predicted by the water budget be appropriate
for the target wetland? ®/ NO
re these S ecific/Measurable/Attainable/Reasonable/Trackable? / N
1. Was a Water Budget prepared for low, average and high conditions
per WETS data? (Attach Report) YES
300ctO2
III. Success Criteria -? e?, 0 0 -ter llbi?il
A. Ve etation: 3Z4 p? W i mq el!
` 7 d
day
v r.

e these Specific/Measurable/Attainable/Reasonable/Trackable? N
IV. Monitoring lj z!G s eUi -y4 f%/gGf / wl ??Cl?o!
A.yy/.{ ame and//tee?lephone>number of person respon^sible for the success of is project: _
/1 / / t /? AlJi .n v, ?/ •? ?/'i1 ?/IOs?/'e /, LL ! 't Az r /4, _' -7 7 _
brli
Are these Suecific/Measurable/Attainable!Reasonable/Trackable? /VE:1 / NO
LIP"IN
B. Is there a monitoring plan? ES NO

300ct02
C. As-Built Report to be submitted within 30 days of project construction? NO
D. Date Annual Monitoring Report to be submitted: ffJCGPi r'?-?.- l
1. V E evations/biological benchmarks: S ??l A 6ko(
LG / i
2. Provisions for Drainage:.-?<Cl -7`/OY? Yl S 'AJ ?y
W t
; W7

B. Are there Contingency Plans built into the proposal to address the above
factors? ES NO
C. Describe how, and when the contingency plan(j) will be implengented:
'S I Al;
[Are these Specific/Measurable/Attainable/Reasonable/Trackable? / YES Y NQ
V. Consideration of Factors of Failure
A. Describe how the following have been considered for this project:
300ctO2
VI. Site Management
Who will ?agge the site after the mitigation effort is deemed successful?
fr
NOTES:
D. Will wetland functions be impacted by current or future land use patterns? YES ! O

oe
APPENDIX C
SLAB TOWN ROAD
BROOK TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN
October 9, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The Slab Town Road site contains one perennial stream and one intermittent tributary to
this stream. The perennial stream is approximately six feet wide and six to 10 inches
deep, with a substrate of course sand and small gravel. The perennial stream has a
limited amount of structure, relatively little overhanging vegetation, and a modest amount
of siltation. The intermittent stream averages two feet wide and several inches deep (in
the lower reaches only), has little to no overhanging vegetation, and a substrate of course
sand and small gravel. The hydrology of the intermittent stream is flashy, being driven
primarily by stormwater runoff from the surrounding uplands. The streams on the site
were electro-shocked by personnel with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) in 2005 prior to any design or preliminary site work was
conducted to determine if brook trout were present. NCWRC personnel later visited the
site in late summer, 2006 for a follow-up evaluation. The perennial stream supports
juvenile brook trout, and the lower 50 to 75 feet of the intermittent stream may be utilized
by brook trout when sufficient water is present.
IMPACT AVOIDANCE
Direct impacts to all streams on the project site were initially avoided to the maximum
extent practicable. The only impacts (0.25 acres of wetlands) to aquatic resources on the
site occur in the wetlands and seepage slopes that are associated with the very upper
reaches of wetland fingers that penetrate the site from the streams and wetlands located to
the north and east. There is typically no discernable stream channel within the areas
proposed for impact, and these areas are often completely dry for long periods of time.
We are confident that the project does not result in direct impact (loss) of streams that are
utilized by brook trout. The brook trout management plan for the site, therefore, is
designed to protect and enhance brook trout streams that are located sufficiently distant
from the proposed development in the northern portion of the site.
IMPACT MINIMIZATION FEATURES
The most prominent potential impacts to the brook trout streams resulting from site
development are inputs of siltation and other pollutants entering the streams from runoff,
and increasing the temperature of the streams through runoff and reduction of shading.
The following specific measures will be implemented as part of the stormwater
management plan and erosion and sediment control plan to minimize potential effects
resulting from runoff.
,r'
• Site runoff will be directed away from wetlands and streams and into the
stormwater management collection system. There will be no discharge of
concentrated runoff flow into wetlands/streams.
• Bioretention basins and underground detention will be employed to remove
sediments and other potential contaminants from runoff (see the attached
Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan contained in Appendix D of the PCN).
• Temporary sediment basins and other appropriate features including silt fencing,
diversion ditches, and an aggressive stabilization schedule for grass and seeding
will be employed.
• Bare soils will be seeded within 15 days of ground disturbance. Grass and
seeding will employ erosion control matting properly anchored with staples,
stakes or native live trees. Tall fescue will not be used in areas adjacent to aquatic
resources.
• Permanent stormwater components will be installed at the earliest possible time
well in advance of major site development or ground disturbance.
• Sediment and erosion control measures will be in place prior to construction and
will remain in place and be maintained until all areas of the site are permanently
stabilized.
• Any mechanized equipment operating near wetlands/streams will be regularly
inspected to minimize leakage fuels, oil, and other fluids. Hydroseed mixtures
and wash waters will not be in contact with streams.
OTHER MITIGATING FEATURES
In addition to the stormwater management and erosion and sediment control practices
discussed above, the following measures will be implemented to protect and enhance the
brook trout habitat on the site.
• All of the most valuable of the on-site wetlands/streams will be preserved with a
minimum 30-ft. upland buffer. The total protected area of 1.35 acres of
wetlands/streams and 0.58 acres upland buffer will be protected through a
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants properly recorded with the Jackson County
RMC Office.
• Planting along the existing preserved streams will be accomplished in an effort to
improve brook trout habitat and maintain optimal stream temperatures by
providing additional shading of the streams (areas along all streams and the entire
site have recently been clear-cut) . Appropriate wetland trees and shrubs will be
planted on approximately 12 to 15-ft. centers along both the perennial and
intermittent streams within the preservation area. Trees and shrubs planted along
the existing streams will typically be of large stock (five to ten-gallon potted
plants) to provide immediate shading benefit.
• Brook trout sampling will be conducted annually for a period of five years
(designed to coincide with five year wetland creation monitoring) to evaluate
brook trout populations within on-site streams.
2
4

SUMMARY
The project was initially designed to avoid effecting brook trout habitat to the
maximum extent possible. As a result, no direct impacts occur to perennial or
intermittent stream reaches that are utilized by brook trout. All unaltered stream
sections that are utilized by brook trout will be protected with a generous amount of
surrounding wetlands and upland buffer. Careful stormwater management and
erosion/sediment control planning will be conducted to minimize potentially harmful
effects, including input of siltation/contaminants and increasing water temperatures,
to down-gradient brook trout habitat. Additionally, protection and enhancement
measures have been designed to protect and improve the brook trout habitat that will
remain on-site. A five-year brook trout sampling plan is also proposed to track the
health of the existing brook trout population.
Lofquist & Associates, Inc.
PLANNING ENGINEERING DESIGN
11 Citrus Drive Sylva, NC 28779 (828) 586- 1424
October 9, 2006
Mr. D.Nick Roark, President
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487
Re: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plant for
Cashiers Commercial Village
Slab Town Road Site
Jim Bryson & Roland Pugh - Owners
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Roark:
We received a copy of the September 15, 2006 letter from Kevin Barnett,
Environmental Chemist with the NC Surface Water Protection forwarded to us by
your office. After reviewing this letter, I telephoned Mr. Barnett to discuss the
preparation of a stormwater management plan and submission of an individual
stormwater permit application for this project. According to Mr. Barnett the
issuance of a 401 permit/certification for this project could be conditioned upon the
future approval of a final stormwater management plan and issuance of a future
State Individual Stormwater Permit. Mr. Barnett went on to explain that a
Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan would need to be submitted with the
401 permit submittal at this time.
Based on Mr. Barnett's recommendations, we have prepared a preliminary
stormwater management plan for the project. Please find enclosed the Conceptual
Stormwater Management Plan, dated October 9, 2006. This stormwater
management concept proposes the use of several bioretention cells serving sub-
drainage basins within the site which would then convey stormwater to an
underground stormwater detention system prior to discharge. The bioretention
cells would be designed based on the recommendations presented in the
NCDENR Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, dated April 1999. The
bioretention cells would be intended to aid in the removal of oils, sediments and
other contaminants associated with parking/roof/impervious areas. The
underground detention system would be constructed of oversized piping or could
employ the -se of a manufactured product such as " Storm-ach" by ADS. The
detention system would: a) provide additional removal of suspended solids
resulting from larger stormwater events that by pass-by the bioretention cells; b)
would lower post-development peak discharge rates anq; c) should aid, to some
I.- ,
Page Two
Mr. D. Nick Roark, President
October 9, 2006
degree, in the cooling of the stormwaters prior to discharge.,, Elevated stormwater
discharge temperatures are a concern with the downstream native trout habitat.
It should be noted that the stormwater management plan is based on the
previously' developed' conceptual development plan for the project. Further site
modifications should be anticipated during final site and grading plan design
iterations. However, the extent of wetland impact would not be increased by any
final design modifications and the basic concept of the enclosed preliminary
stormwater management plan would be utilized in the finalization of the site
design.
Should you wish to discuss this project in greater detail or if we can be of further
assistance at this time, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Lofquist & Associates, Inc. ???ti"j"'?.""'•r?
SEA
Victor Lofquist, P.E.
- enclosures