20110260 Ver 1_More Info Received_20110323

C_
T
c
I,V? itu,ti?u.? r.
-I EA 1.:1-11 & SAr FIN
February 16, 2011
Mr. Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
C c71?E S c;?
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Department of Environment, Health & Safety
1120 Estes Drive Ext., CB# 1650
Cha el Hill, North Carolina 27599-1650
Reference: Response to January 18, 2011 Notice of Incomplete Application
SAW-2010.01840
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Orange County
North Carolina
Dear Mr. Williams:
fit- Oat?o
C0..r o lama- ? Dr A'?%
MA R`?' 1
The following responses and attached documentation are provided to address the remarks
contained in your January 18, 2011 Notice of Incomplete Application pertaining to the Individual
Permit Application for Carolina North. Each United States Army Corp of Engineers' (USACE)
remark is provided in italics and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's (UNC-CH or
University) response follows:
Remarks
1. Your application states that there may be a need for temporary impacts at Wetland C and
Wetland F. Please clearly indicate if there will be temporary impacts at these sites, and, if
so, the total amount of temporary impacts. Also, please provide any revised drawings
indicating the location and amount of temporaryfill (impacts). Finally, you should include a
restoration plan for any temporaryfills (impacts).
The temporary impacts referenced in the Individual Permit (IP) application at Wetlands C and
F are associated with the proposed installation of a electrical and telecommunications duct
bank to provide power and telecommunications to existing University facilities. The
proposed duct bank is a separate and complete project that will extend a duct bank from the
substation at Homestead Road and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard (MLK, Jr. Blvd.) to
existing University facilities on Airport Drive. The portion of this lame that is located on the
Carolina North (CN) property was described in the IP application for reference only. The
proposed duct bank is being permitted separately and a Preconstruction Notification form for
a Nationwide Permit 12 will be submitted to the USACE in the near future.
2. Based on a review of your application, you propose impacts to 8 jurisdictional stream
channels. In order to minimize degradation of water quality, flow within these channels
should be diverted around the work (fill) area during construction. Please provide additional
details regarding your proposed method of stream diversion. If you plan to use temporary
coffer dams, please be aware that coffer dams are considered as temporary fill and
update/adjust your application and plans accordingly. Please include a restoration plan for
any temporaryfills.
}
During construction activities that impact streams, pump arounds will be used to divert water
around work areas. UNC-CH anticipates using sand bags to create temporary dams upstream
of the work areas. A properly sized pump and associated hose will transport the volume of
flow in a creek from above the sand bag dam to an area downstream of the in-stream work,
allowing the work to be conducted in relatively dry conditions. Upon completion of work in
a stream, the sand bag dam will be removed. This technique will be used on large and small
streams by using pumps and hoses that are sized to accommodate the flow characteristics of a
particular stream.
3. On plan sheet C-14 please indicate the location of the proposed duct bank. Also, please show
the location of the proposed duct bank on any of the other large scale plan sheets, if
applicable.
As requested, Figure C-14 has been revised to show the Estes Drive duct bank and associated
utility pad location. Please remove the original version of Figure C-14 from the IP
application, and replace it with the attached Figure C-14, February 16, 2011, Revision 1.
4. On plan sheet C-9, please indicate if the proposed fill is temporary or permanent. If it is
temporary, please include a restoration plans. Also, if it is a temporary impact ill), no
compensatory mitigation is required, provided the impact area is returned to pre-
construction contours.
The crossing of Bolin Creek is not a temporary or permanent impact. Riprap will be placed
over the pipe and will fill the trench, with the top of the riprap at the pre-construction
elevation of the stream substrate. The fill is shown because the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) considers riprap placed in a stream a permanent impact regardless of
the final elevation of the riprap. Therefore, this impact was shown as a permanent impact in
the application. Figure C-9 has been revised. Please replace Figure C-9 with the attached
revised Figure C-9, February 16, 2011, Revision 1.
5. Figure A-22 indicates a number ofproposed utility lines. Please indicate if these proposed
lines connect to existing utilities or to'other proposed utilities.
Figure A-22 has been revised to show the locations of the existing utilities to which the
proposed utilities will connect. The proposed utilities and their connections are described
below.
Proposed Utifi Lines Connection to Existing Utility Lines
Water All proposed water lines will connect to existing Orange Water
and Sewer Authority (OWASA) water mains.
Sanitary Sewer All proposed sanitary sewers will connect to existing OWASA
sanitary sewer interceptors.
Sanitary Sewer Scalping All proposed sanitary sewer scalping force mains will connect to
Force Main existing OWASA sanitary sewer interceptors.
Natural Gas The proposed natural gas line will connect to the existing PSNC
Energy gas pipeline. (Note: The full extent of existing PSNC
Energy infrastructure in the vicinity of CN is not shown on Figure
A-22. Only the existing PSNC Ener as pipeline located on the
Page 2 of 8
CN roperty is shown on Figure A-22.
Electric -- Estes Drive The proposed electric duct bank located north of Estes Drive will
extend to existing Duke Energy electric transmission lines to
provide redundant feeds at a future time. (Note: The full extent of
existing Duke Energy infrastructure in the vicinity of CN is not
shown on Figure A-22. Only the existing electric transmission line
located on the CN property and the existing line that will be tied
into perpendicular to Estes Drive are shown on Figure A-22.
The revised map does not depict the proposed electric and telecommunication infrastructure
that is currently under design by the University and described below.
Proposed UtiH Lines Connection to Proposed Utility
Electric and The proposed electric and telecommunications duct bank
Telecommunications - extending to Homestead Road is part of a single and complete
Homestead Road project that will extend a duct bank from the substation at
Homestead Road and MLK, Jr. Blvd. to the University facilities on
Airport Drive. The portion of this line that is located on the CN
property is shown for reference. The proposed duct bank is being
permitted separately.
Please remove the original version of Figure A-22 from the IP application, and replace it with
the attached Figure A-22, February 16, 2011, Revision 1.
6. The portion of stream 14A that is proposed for impacts was determined to have minimal
aquatic function and therefore, the Corps will not require compensatory mitigation for
impacts to that portion of stream. However, in Table D-2, you have excluded the 178 linear
feet of impaeff-to stream 14A from the total amount of impacted streams. Please revise this
table, as well as other portions of the application where the 178 linear feet of impacts to
stream 14A has been omitted.
As requested, Table D-2 and other portions of the application have been revised. The IP
application indicates both on page 46 and in Table D-2 that 174 linear feet of Stream 14A
will be unavoidably impacted (not 178 linear feet as described in USACE Remark 6). As
described below, the 174 linear feet of unavoidable impact to Stream 14A was added to the
previous totals.
Table D-2 has been revised and 174 linear feet of unavoidable impact was added to the
previous total of 378 linear feet, for a revised total stream impact of 552 linear feet. Please
remove the original version of Table D-2 from the IP application, and replace it with the
attached Table D-2, February 16, 2011, Revision 1. Please remove the original version of
Page 46 and replace it with the attached replacement page, dated 2/16/201, Revision 1 in the
footer of the page.
Figure A-21 was revised to correct the previous total of 158 linear feet to 332 linear feet of
total stream impact. Please remove the original version of Figure A-21 from the IP
application and replace it with the attached Figure A-21, February 16, 2011, Revision 1.
Page 3 of 8
Table D-3 was revised to correct the previous total of 378 linear feet to 552 linear feet of total
stream impact. Please remove the original version of Table D-3 from the 1P application, and
replace it with the attached Table D-3, February 16, 2011, Revision 1.
Table D-5 was revised to correct the previous total of 203 linear feet to 377 linear feet of total
stream impact. Please remove the original version of Table D-5 from the IP application, and
replace it with the attached Table D-5, February 16, 2011, Revision 1.
Table D-7 was revised to correct the previous total of 204 linear feet to 378 linear feet of total
stream impact. Please remove the original version of Table D-7 from the IP application, and
replace it with the attached Table D-7, February 16, 2011, Revision 1.
Table D-10 was revised to include stream 14A in the table. The previous of 247 linear feet of
total impact to streams was revised to 421 linear feet of total impact to streams. A note was
added to the table explaining the jurisdictional status of Stream 14A and that no mitigation
required for impact to Stream 14A. Please remove the original version of Table D-10 from
the 1P application, and replace it with the attached Table D-10, February 16, 2011, Revision
1.
Table D-11 was revised to include stream 14A in the table: The previous of 347 linear feet of
total impact to streams was revised to 521 linear feet of total impact to streams. A note was
added to the table explaining the jurisdictional status of Stream 14A and that no mitigation is
required for impact to stream 14A. Please remove the original version of Table D-11 from
the IP application, and replace it with the attached Table D-11, February 16, 2011, Revision
1.
In the report section of the IP application, Page 31 of the report was revised to correct Table
D-3. Please remove the original version of Page 31 and replace it with the attached
replacement page, dated February 16, 2011, Revision 1 in the footer of the page.
In the report section of the IP application, Page 37 of the report was revised to correct Table
D-5. The second paragraph of the text on Page 37 was revised to change the text "...203
linear feet of stream..." to "...377 linear feet of stream..." Please remove the original
version of Page 37 and replace it with the attached replacement page, dated February 16,
2011, Revision 1 in the footer of the page.
In the report section of the IP application, Page 53-54 of the report has been revised. The
table (D-10) showing stream impacts was revised to include Stream 14 A. Stream 14A was
inserted in the table. The previous total of 247 linear feet of streams was revised to 421 linear
feet of total impact to streams. A note was added to the bottom of the table. Please remove
the original versions of Page 53-54 and replace it with the attached replacement pages, dated
February 16, 2011, Revision l in the footer of the page.
In the report section of the 1P application, Page 55-56 of the report has been revised. Table D-
11 was revised to include Stream 14 A. Stream 14A was inserted in the table. The previous
total of 347 linear feet of streams was revised to 521 linear feet of total impact to streams. A
note was added to the bottom of the table. Please remove the original version of Page 55-56
and replace it with the attached replacement pages, dated February 16, 2011, Revision 1 in
the footer of the page.
Page 4 of 8
7. Your application does not indicate ifyou plan to construct rip rap dissipation at the proposed
stream culvert modification sites. In many cases, the North Carolina Division of Land
Quality will require dissipation pads as part of the sediment and erosion control plan.
Please provide a brief discussion regarding the design of the proposed culverts and if there is
a need for any dissipation pads. Specifically, you must indicate if it has been designed in
accordance with the current North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual. This manual can be found at the following website:
http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pa?ublications.htin We recommend that you coordinate
your design with the North Carolina Division of Land Quality. If you do plan to construct rip
rap dissipation pads, please update the application and plans to indicate the proposed
amount of rip rap at each impact location.
The North Carolina Division of Land Quality requirement for dissipation pads has been
reviewed and is discussed below. Figure C-6 has been revised to show the riprap dissipation
pad. The impacts have not changed as a result.
With one exception (Stream 14A) discussed below, the proposed stream culvert modification
sites involve upstream extensions to existing culverts under North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) roads. The current North Carolina Division of Land Quality
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual (Manual) states that dissipation
pads are required if the velocity increases as compared to existing conditions. The Manual
calculates velocity as a function of pipe cross-sectional area and discharge.
The University assumes that the culverts proposed for extension were designed per NCDOT
standards and therefore considered build-out land use in the calculation for discharge through
the culverts. Additionally, the University committed in the DA with the Town of Chapel Hill
to control peak discharge rates for the 1-year, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and 50-year, 24-hour
design storms. Therefore, it is assumed that culvert design discharge rates will not change.
Since the discharges and cross-sectional areas for the NCDOT culverts will not change, the
velocities will not increase. When these design assumptions are applied, no riprap dissipation
pads are required at the proposed upstream culvert extension sites.
The proposed culvert to convey Stream 14A under the proposed railroad spur, shown in
Figure C-6, is the only culvert that is not an upstream extension to an existing NCDOT
culvert. The calculation methods from the current Manual were used to determine the
required length of a rip rap dissipation pad for this culvert. The addition of a dissipation pad
at the proposed crossing of Stream 14A did not increase the impact length previously
calculated. Figure C-6 has been revised to show this dissipation pad. Please remove the
original version of Figure C-6 from the 1P application, and replace it with the attached Figure
C-6, February 16, 2011 Revision 1.
8. Please be aware that all authorized culverts must be installed to allow the passage of low
stream flows and the continued movement offish and other aquatic life as well as to prevent
headcutting of the streambed. For all box culverts and for pipes greater than 48 inches in
diameter, the bottom of the pipe must be buried at least one foot below the bed of the stream
unless burial would be impractical and the Corps of Engineers has waived this requirement.
For culverts 48 inches in diameter or smaller, the bottom of the pipe must be buried below
the bed of the stream to a depth equal to or greater than 20 percent of the diameter of the
culvert. For each proposed culvert extension, please indicate if how you plan to meet these
requirements. If you do not propose to meet these requirements, please indicate how the
Page 5 of 8
proposed impacts will allow the passage of low stream flows and the continued movement of
,fish and other aquatic life.
The culvert burial requirements described in Remark 8 above will be met for the one
proposed new culvert. At all of the proposed culvert extensions, the requirements will be met
where possible and practicable. For sites not meeting the requirements for burying the
inverts, the proposed extensions will continue to pass low stream flows and will not restrict
the movement of fish and other aquatic life more than the current conditions.
The one proposed new culvert will convey Stream 14A under the proposed railroad spur (see
Figure C-6 in the EP application). All of the proposed culvert extensions occur on the
upstream sides of existing NCDOT culverts and are discussed below.
If the existing culvert meets the pipe burial requirements described in Remark 8, the proposed
upstream culvert extension will meet these requirements as well. This applies to the
following proposed upstream culvert extension sites at Stream 2 and Crow Branch where the
existing culverts have buried inverts at the upstream and downstream ends.
Figure Stream Road Existing Culvert Existing Upstream &
Downstream Invert
Conditions
C-10 Stream 2 Estes Drive Extension 8 foot x?-6 foot box Buried below stream invert
(Perennial) at Seawell School culvert
Road
C-15 Crow Branch MLK Jr., Blvd. 8 foot x^-4 foot box Buried below stream invert
Perennial culvert
In cases where the existing culvert invert was placed at the existing channel invert on the
upstream end at Streams 1, 4, 8, and 13, meeting the culvert burial requirement will not be
practicable and the inverts of the proposed culvert sections will need to match the existing
upstream inverts. Since the streams are low gradient, it is unlikely that the requirement for
burying could be met by installing the upstream culvert extension at a low slope. Replacing
the entire pipe is beyond the scope of the University project and is not considered a
practicable alternative for these existing NCDOT culverts. Though not meeting the
requirements for burying the invert, the proposed upstream extensions to existing NCDOT
culverts will continue to pass low stream flows, will not restrict the movement of fish and
other aquatic life more than the current conditions. This applies to the following proposed
culvert extension sites with existing upstream inverts that are at grade and not buried.
Figure Stream Road Existing Existing Existing Downstream
Culvert Upstream Invert Condition
Invert
Condition
C-5 Stream 8 Seawell School Road, 36 inch At grade At grade
(Intermittent) south of Homestead Reinforced
Road Concrete
Pie (RCP)
C-8 Stream 4 Seawell School Road, 42 inch At grade -8 inch drop off to rip
Intermittent west of Hanover Bituminous rap dissipation ad
Page 6 of 8

Place Coated
Corrugated
Metal Pipe
C-13 Stream I Estes Drive 24 inch RCP At grade Drop off into channel
(Intermittent) Extension, west of (not measured). After
Facilities Drive 30 feet, the channel
enters 950 feet of
storm drain.
C-14 Stream 13 Estes Drive, east of 24 inch RCP At grade Not assessed - on
(Perennial) MLK Jr., Blvd. private property and
not visible from road
9. For all proposed fills, please provide the proposed source of the fill material, including a
description of the type, composition and quantity of material.
The source of fill proposed for all construction activities will be generated from cut on site or
by importing clean fill material from off site. Under either scenario, the fill will be clean and
free of deleterious substances. Composition of the fill will vary slightly, but will generally
consist of 40 percent sand, 40 percent silt and 20 percent clay.
If you have any questions regarding this information or need additional information, please
contact me at [phone] or Ms. Jill Coleman at [phone].
Sine rely,
Sharon A. Myers, L. G.
Environmental Compliance Officer
cc: Ms. Jill Coleman
Dr. Daniel Elliott
Ms. Mary Beth Koza
Mr. Ian McMillan
Mr. Kevin Nunnery
Mr. Bruce Runberg
Ms. Anna Wu
Attachments: Figure A-21, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Figure A-22, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Figure C-6, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Figure C-9, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Figure C-14, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Table D-2, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Table D-3, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Table D-5, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Table D-7, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Table D-10, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Table D-11, February 16, 2011, Revision I
Revised Page 31, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Page 7 of 8
y
Revised Page 37, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Revised Page 46, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Revised Page 53-54, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Revised Page 55-56, February 16, 2011, Revision 1
Page 8 of 8

s
0
J
loc.

1
L ' . •
L

Lu
tin Jr gtvd

ther King
Mar
.?•?• '? LJ','.
?

V%
Crow BrI%C

I
o°

r

N
V
N
N
O
?
N

m O Q
N
o

N

N
(d

OD
C4

N
16

N
;f

C)
E

o

(33 ? c
d

Z
c
tcq
2

v

pp
o

_

N

n

m
N
W
N a
?
E °a_
cn U
C
m C
0 N c7 ? O
N pT?
O NN
O ?Q
`-: Y
O I?
O pNp
l+1 ?
ry U
M
o 0 0 0 .= o o o o ?i o
N m
N
0

m
QQ
Q

Q

X

}

N

Q

t0

H ?
E O
w
E y _

I
i
.
¦
I
N ^'
`I
Q
W
1 Dn
V
rc ° m' ? a G
g
n Q n E
a r a rein 22
an
1100 a

L

I 3 n y{ °m o ?{
p ? c A ° • o

U O [? E ?D E y
V
C

z
O

' U
J

F- W
W
o
w W)
a

J
W
O
c O
Z ?
\
>aa W
0
z
It
=ate
F- Q
W C Z W N
I z N co

• a
J N W Z)
.
I 0 ` / m
Q W W W
U tL
I
Z
?

•
?`
7 y W

C7
•
°0
00
N
N
Q
® o W
U
LL
J N 3
? I m m n r
0 0 a
( o a ? ?
0 0 °g
1 0 0
\ \ \ \\ > j E ? U Ey
` ?~ .. ?? ? f \\ n E o a
i
.r _ '? S1 \ m 0 0 ¢ 0 N
J a -1-i '?I ? w w w w w w
??, I I I
s
I ?? , w d o N
\ N
I .. _: W s z w
I ? I z; in W o w
IS
a`
I
I 1 Seawell School Rd / - \
?\ ' \ J Z
\ I / Q
0 fA
?*( 7 m
T Zz w
1 r- 'Y ?J z -LVr? { ?' U Q 0' N
za U
Q
Q Z w Q
02 0
CO
Q Lu Q H Lu
i / U IL U Z) LL
r
? z
r
FO.:
of <
IO U
S ? t
z F a
0 06 a
0
w z
.Y
M_
•
E
•
0
0

U

LL LL LL LL
0

W ' r- 0 0
F-
LLI
w

Q H/?/
w v/
/ W
W W U

r ww

/

O /i

/ OOa
O
N N 2

Q
J

H 2

wwwZO

w U

Z U

a IL IL 1L -1 p J
m m m w, z

U) CO
"' ,
/
a
I--
F- WWWF- w0
g g ? ~
w
?,
w U
a U
a aaa2Ow
oooWOw?
? a a 000F-CL0
a U ^Z c
C 5--1 --1 cnQU
- -

U)

a a

Lu ?

w c4

w Z
w
? i ,' , Z Z I I I
cn N N

U)
Q
O Z p
_ ? I I I
1 1 1 1 1 U
J
Ix
L
-
F-
(/A
/' ?'
' I
? '
I' 1
1 CL
a- ?-

Q

W
/
' I
? ? ?
?
? ?
?a
/ ' II?'
? ? w o
? ] H ??I
/ ' LL
r i ? -i
/ /,
aZ? 0
< Wa l l l l l l l l Q g
goH cn

Q0Q
LL w J
>wU >
-- aQa paw Zoa
-- Z
?
?a W 0
__? C)
N
(D () f- 09 ? Cp
? ? j ~
Z0
0 o? w w
Seawell School Road < ( w

z
1,4
0 a
F
.
IA (? ?
a<x
a
z
z O W E.
?
LU
zU

;
U)
H o a
X ? Q CC1;
W W n
??

C7
•

LL LL
0 0
(1) CO

J 0 J
0
0
00 N O
N r r N

U
< U
a

U U ?
Y

W 2 2 "IT

U
r N

J Z Z
0 0 0
m N N to
I-
OW

QUO0
H
M a LJ
F- Z Z
LU Z)
U
??U
H Y Z

OUJ aZ
?
U
H O

\ H Q J W W
CL

\ 0LL cr-
O
Z2- m0a.

I. ?
I I
I I
,I p
ii
?
I I
I 1
, I
I i ?
I ,
I I
li' ?
I I
I i ? / ?
I I
? ?
1 I
? ? i
I I ? I ?
I ' / I 1
ii ? ? ii
I p I I
? ?
o ? ICI
? ? ii
„
I I
? / ? I I
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
? ii
I °
I
? o
1 -
. rn
I
i U
'
r w
?
I

U-
?; o
I
I
I
\ Sip
-110
ell,
I ,
000,
2 - -0 VIP
W W Q p - 2 Z
(n I I
? W W
w IX O m? I I
N
W 0 I,
Z D) LL U LL l I ?
Q
Q a ?
?U) z? < o
ii
Z _Z a o WW „ ?
Q(n JM
V U) I' ? ?
O li ,
0? U) i i l ?/? l
J W ,i ? Ii'
MZ (W ? ?
I 1 , I I
I I , i
< col
N I I ? ? i I
W ,
I , / I I
I I I I
Q I I 11
,0
CJ)
Of W
Q ii ? ? ii W
(D W W
I I , i
?Q
O W I I p ? I I Z
W L'L? I I ? ' ? I I' O
5 li I, \
O W ? ? i, m J
Z(n
W W
D?
W ~
H U
U-
< 0
LU -j
0F-
LL CL
W
O U
Z
Z
a0
QU
U Z
cn 0
WF-
w Q
co
G
CL
Z
w
w
Ir
Q
N
z z Qa
ooCL
z
w LL LL W
LL LL Lo
m m m W
Y Y Y z
5ggw
z z z 2
0 0 o w
O O O
o
z I
w
Z
o?
~ U
J a
d ?
F¢- a m
O
Lu
a O? Q
Jw W
Do ?
>w
?>
Zo z
Z2 Q
?w W
Z?
zo U
J? Z
Ob J
Qa 0
U? m
z
O
U)
W
O
N
(D
}
Q
D
m
w
LL
x w
z F a
X05
s z u
F o o
z
N p a
y d,a.
d
W u
U
? a

•
•

0
Z
W - O ci
Z F w
O w
Z LL LL ®

l
?
a > W
M
J
H Q Q Q Q

U W
rl- LL
Q c:)
W O
I I ' I l 1 1
I I
l
li
I 11 l
I
I
N F

I I I I I
I I I
I I Z Z a O

N.
I
rni
I I
°
N
W W w
I I I

I
LL u- LL LL LL a? W M
LL
J
O
I I I I' Z
mmm QW
III w W a Fw0

r-
n.
ao
00 It z
aaazZ oF-
g
gM
?- ooo
F- F-
F-.WWZ
000 ?QU

Q Q I W
Cf)
? z
a ?

I L
r
/ W
J
r //
?
J a N

Q J
O co
= U
I a
w (D
w z
J O M

I Q Q

U
¢
n. Z
a w
I a Q ? F-
o

m
I m
p
°
a? Q
U
I Q °r°
o 0 C)a cn
ao c
I
w _
? w
z

W > o U)
U)
W = Q I
W
N _= W C)
?w N
H Q O y°', F- 09<
Z
1- 0 Z a W J W ? Z
O w ?
Q
U Z W
> o?
Z)
Wa
m
_
J W _
a W
a >

O
Z (A U> LL

m O

Q e
z
UV
O W t0
O °
' p
w Al :z
of (D sae
Z
_
?°zo ^
0
F o a .
o_
1 . U)
X

J

(O
?
O
?
C7
?
?
?
T- W
U

0 (O
O W
U
N
0
CO W
U
?
0
0 W
U
O
(?
0
0
W W

J U J U

O a O ?

U

W W W W

N NN NN NN
Q Q 6
L LJ 6L 6L

? Q Q Q Q
r CC
C C
C
C ? ? ? ?
? Z Z Z Z

W W W ? H H
I-
? W W W W
O O

?
N
N 0 0 d O
• Table D-2 Carolina North Impacts to Wetlands and Streams Outside of the Development Footprint
•
•
Impacts to Wetlands Outside the Development Footprint
Wetland Acres Mitigation Ratio
A 0.099 1:1
X 0.143 2:1
2 0.005 2:1
3 0.011 2:1
T (5) 0.014 2:1
6 0.037 2:1
17 0.023 2:1
18 0.065 2:1
TOTAL 0.397 Acres
Impacts to Streams Outside the Development Footprint
Stream Linear Feet Mitigation Ratio
1 31 2:1
2 27 2:1
5A* 100 2:1
8 47 2:1
13 60 2:1
14A 174** 2:1
14B 20 2:1
Bolin Creek 21 2:1
Crow Br (Wetland A) 72 2:1
TOTALS 552
* stream 5A was classified as "isolated" by regulatory agencies
** 174 If of stream, classified as "unimportant" by regulatory agencies, no mitigation required
February 16, 2011: REVISION 1
• Table D-3 Summary of Impacts -Alternatives Analysis
Carolina North Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No-Build
Impacts to streams 552 feet 4,968 feet 7,500 feet 0 feet
Impacts to wetlands 2.5 acres 2.7 acres 2.6 acres 0 acres
Impacts to Jordan Lake
Buffers 0.9 acres 9.6 acres 2.6 acres 0 acres
•
•
February 16, 2011: REVISION 1
• Table D-5 Summary of Impacts for Carolina North - Avoidance and Minimization
IMPACT TABLE
PLAN WETLAND (acres) STREAM (linear feet)
1998 4.83* 9,714*
2000 3.56* 5,212*
2001 4.77* 9,312*
2004 1.53* 1,767*
2007 2.95* 807*
Revised 2007 (on 947 acre site only) 2.32 377
(Summary of Figures A-16 through A-21 impacts)
*Does not include impacts to wetlands and streams due to required off-site infrastructure
improvements (see Sections 8.2 and 8.3 and Appendix A, Figure A-4 for information regarding total
impacts, on and off site.).
•
•
February 16, 2011: REVISION 1
i Table D-7 Stream Impacts Within the Approximately 947-acre Carolina North Boundary

•
Stream Length ft Im act (ft)
Bolin Creek 6,821 0
Crow
Branch
5,508
72
1 325 32
3 425 0
4 370 0
5A 245 100
5B 125 0
8 494 0
12A 232 0
14A 2,546 174*
16 1,881 0
19 449 0
20 247 0
21 131 0
22 932 0
23 1,086 0
24 1,312 0
25 1,017 0
26 2,057 0
27A 1,823 0
27B 1,054 0
Totals 29,079 378
*classified as unimportant, by USACE
February 16, 2011: REVISION 1
T NOISIAM :TTOZ'9T Aaenagaj
806'£t,Z$ = 21 idne + Wb3HIS + GNVIAM 14101
suo ileln:)Ie:) eaae as;;nq lenpinipui ao; xipuaddy ui sain2i; of aa;ai aseald **
6LZb£$ ltS'T£ TLT'Z OL£'6Z vedwi jau :1d1Ol8nS
88Z'9E$ 008'LE OZt'ST 089'ZZ uoljeaolsai weaals aol }ipaao
L9S'99$ Tt,E'69 T6Z'LT OSO'ZS uolle8ilp paalnba.i lejol
L9S'99$
i LL8'8Z LZS'TT OSE'LT Ltpz pedwi lejol
Zt8'8T$ Zt,9'Z TTZ'S ZL (d puellaM) y:)uea9 MoaO
St,6'9$ SOZT 608't TZ Naaa0 u1.109
OZ 8 tit
'vTb'ET$ ST6'T OOL'E 09 ET
Lt,0'ST$ 66L'Z SZ8'E Lt, 8
6t,E'ZT$ 996'Z 508'Z LZ Z
}s/96'$ T:S'T wee ilS
Is00 uol3e8ljIW Z auoZ T auoZ pedual
** spedw l aa}ln8 alel uep.ior
paalnbaa uolle8lllua ou-30ysnAq juejaodwlunpue bMa JN Aq leaawayd3 se paleu8lsap lauuey:)*
ZL6'99T$ TZb 1t11O18nS
ZL9'8t,$ ttT T:Z ZL (d puellaM) gouea8 MoJD
96T't,T$ Zt, T:Z TZ Naaa0 ullo8
OZS'ET$ 0t, T:Z OZ 8 VT
0$ 0 b'/N tLt *`d VT
09S'Ot,$ OZT T:Z 09 ET
ZLL'TE$ P6 T:Z Lt, 8
ZSZ'8T$ I t's T:Z LZ Z
II/8£ £$ $ (1I)

Iso0 uolleslllW I;IW
oljea uol;e
pedual weaals
sweaalS
8S9'917$ OSL'0 Z aseyd aol a:)ueleq
£55'ST$ OSZ'O }u@wAed T aseyd a01 Ilpaa:)
OTZ'Z9$ 000'T ane SZ• ixau ayj of do papuno.i
9017'09$ TL6'0 TZ8'0 iviol8nS
L80'8$ OET'O T:Z S90'0 8T
Z98'Z$ 9t,0'0 T:Z EZ0'0 LT
t,09't,$ t,LO'O T:Z LEO-0 9
ZbL'T$ 8Z0'0 T:Z t,TO'0 (S)1
69E'T$ ZZ0'0 T:Z TTO'O E
t,8S'SE$ ZLS'O T:T ZLS'0 917'
6ST'9$ 660'0 T:T 660'0 d
9 o
B
ISO:) uoRe8I
VV !le2I uo!}e
Wy
I ? ?edw
I puel3aM
s puel}aM
V algel
1:)e wl puelloM pue weOJIS 41JON eulloae0 :Z aseyd OT-a algel
0 0 0
T NOISIAM :TTOZ'9T Aaenagaj
TZb'8Stb$ = 2l3jjn9 + IMd381S + ONV113M 14101
suo ilelnilei eaje ja}4nq I enpinipui joj xipuaddV ui sainSi; oijapi aseald **
MIS$ TL6'tbS 9£8'9 S£T'8b pedwl lau :it11O18ns
88Z'9E$ 008'LE OZT'ST 089'ZZ uoileaolsai weaals ao} llpaa:)
09068$ TLL'Z6 9S6'TZ ST8'OL uoile8ilp paalnbai lelol
090'68$ ZbZ'8£ LE9't T S09'EZ Lb£ pedwl lelol
ZT8'8T$ Zti9'Z TITS ZL (V puellaM) yaueas nnoa0
Sti6'9$ SON 608'T TZ laaa0 ullo9
OZ 8 VT
tiTti'ET$ ST6'T OOL'E 09 ET
Lb0'ST$ 66L'Z SZ8'E Lb 8
E6ti'ZZ$ OTT'E SSZ'9 OOT *S
6tiE'ZT$ 996'Z S08'Z LZ Z
11/9 6'$ T:S'T T:£ (11) weaa

lsoO uolleall!W
Z auoZ
T auoZ
pedwl lS
**sl:)edwl aa}}n8 alel uep.ior
paalnbaa uolleSlllw ou-30ySnAq luelaodwlun pue bMa Aq leaawaydl se paleu8lsap lauuey0**
wea.ils palelosl*
ZLS'b£Z$ V69 TZS iviolans
ZL9'8ti$ ttT T:Z ZL (V puellaM) y:)uea8 nnoa0
96T'tiT$ Zb T:Z TZ jawo ullo8
OZS'ET$ Oti T:Z OZ 8 bT
0$ 0 V/N bLT **V t7T
09S'Oti$ OZT T:Z 09 ET
ZLL'TE$ V6 T:Z Lt, 8
009'L9$ ON T:Z OOT *S
ZSZ'81$ tiS T:Z LZ Z
11/8 ££$
i1 (}l)
ISO:) uolle'll o!3e2I uolle
13!W pedw
I uaeaalS
sweaalS
spuellam pajelosi
MILT$ OSL'Z Z aseyd ao} aaueleq
£SS'ST$ OSZ'0 lu@wAed T aseyd a01 llpaaO
0£9'98T$ 0001£ ane SZ• lxau ayl of do papunoi
SSZ'£LT$ S8CZ LOb'Z S1V1O1
L80'8$ OET'O T:Z S90'0 8T
Z98'Z$ 9ti0'0 T:Z EZ0'0 LT
ti09'ti$ 17L0'0 T:Z LEO-0 9
ZtiL'T $ 8Z0'0 T:Z VT0'0 (S)1
69E'T$ ZZ0'0 T:Z TTO'O E
b8S'SE$ ZLS'O T:T ZLS'0 8V
TL8$ bTO'O T:T VT0'0 VV
EZS'SL$ VTZ'T T:T t,TZ'T Z
L80'8$ OET'0 T:T ET'0 A
S9b'L$ OZT'O T:Z 90'0 *8X
TTT'E$ OSO'0 T:Z SZO'0 *VX
Z6L'LT$ 98Z'0 T:Z Et T'0 *X
6ST'9$ 660'0 T:T 660'0 V
ei3e/O TZ,zg$
8
ISO:) uo }e81; W ollea uolle
13IW l?edw
I puellaM
spuellam
8 algel
lie wl PUellaM pue weaalS 41JON eulloae0 :Z aseyd TT-4 algel
0 0 0
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
0 Table D-3 Summary of Impacts -Alternatives Analysis
Carolina North Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No-Build
Impacts to streams 552 feet 4,968 feet 7,500 feet 0 feet
Impacts to wetlands 2.5 acres 2.7 acres 2.6 acres 0 acres
Impacts to Jordan Lake
Buffers 0.9 acres 9.6 acres 2.6 acres 0 acres
Table D-4 Summary of Criteria - Alternatives Analysis
Adequate Acreage - supports Access to Public Site within 2 mile
50 year growth plan Transportation radius of Main
Campus
Alternative 1 V
Alternative 2 V V
Carolina North J
Property
No-build University needs space to n/a n/a
Alternative grow, therefore not a viable
alternative
is
•
Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. February 16, 2011 Revision 1 Page 31
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
7.0 Avoidance and Minimization 0
7.1 1990's through 2007 Carolina North Planning Efforts
Planning efforts for the Carolina North campus were initiated in the late 1990s. The entire
parcel was assessed in the early planning efforts. The University contracted with Johnson,
Johnson and Roy, Landscape Architects (JJR) and Parson Brinkerhoff, Engineers (PB) to assess
the development potential of the Horace Williams Airport parcel and the Mason Farm parcel.
The report was submitted to the University in September, 1998.
The report states that "...it proved difficult to define the specific uses that might be needed at
the Horace Williams property over the next 30-50 years. As a result, it was determined that
general use districts should be defined, each containing a similar range of possible uses to
maintain the necessary flexibility for future University decision-making."
In the following discussion of avoidance and minimization of impacts, the wetland and stream
information, (see Figure 3, Streams and Wetlands) was overlaid on each of the master plan
documents (see Figures A-16 through A-21). The acreage of wetlands and linear footage of
streams which would have likely been impacted with implementation of each master plan was
calculated. For purpose of this discussion, impacts outside of the Carolina North boundary were
not addressed due to the fact that earlier master planning efforts did not address off site road
and utility infrastructure improvements •
The 1998 Plan, evolved from the early planning process (see Appendix A, Figure A-16). Because
the 1998 Plan is a diagrammatic representation of onsite vehicular circulation and parcels
proposed for development, it is difficult to determine the actual impact to wetlands and streams
that would have occurred with implementation of this plan. However, for the purpose of this
document, an estimate was made. The estimate was made by overlaying the wetland and
stream mapping on the 1998 Plan and assuming a potential development scenario. With
implementation of the 1998 plan, approximately 4.83 acres of wetlands and 9,714 linear feet of
stream would have been impacted.
In 2000, University officials worked extensively with the University's new planning consultant,
Ayers Saint Gross to develop a concept master plan using the JJR Report as a basis, for the
highest and best use of the Horace Williams property. The goal was to fulfill the strategic vision
over the near term (10 - 20 years) and long term (100 years). The work one this concept master
plan helped establish more specific concepts of design for a type of mixed-use, innovative
research park and academic campus that could be created at the property. This plan was also a
diagrammatic representation of onsite vehicular circulation and parcels (see Appendix A, Figure
A-17). With implementation of the 2000 concept plan, approximately 3.56 acres of wetlands
and 5,212 linear feet of stream would have been impacted.
The TOCH approved its Land Use Ordinance in 2001, which would have allowed the University to
develop all of the acreage except the former landfill as single and multi-family residential or sell
the property to a residential developer (see Appendix A, Figure A-18). If the parcel had been
Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. 12/23/2010 Page 32
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
0 7.4 Avoidance and Minimization - Summary of Impacts for Carolina North
These refinements to the 2007 Carolina North Plan resulted in additional avoidance to 0.63 acre
of forested wetland and 604 linear feet of stream. This plan revision took into account the
forest ecology of the entire approximately 947 acre parcel and the value of headwater and
perennial streams
•
0
With implementation of the revisions to the 2007 Plan, 2.32 acres of wetland and 377 linear feet
of stream within the Carolina North parcel boundary will be unavoidably impacted with
development of the project (see Appendix A, Figure A-21).
Table D-5 Summary of Impacts for Carolina North - Avoidance and Minimization
(Summary of Figures A-16 through A-21 impacts)
IMPACT TABLE
PLAN WETLAND (acres) STREAM (linear feet)
1998 4.83* 9,714*
2000 3.56* 5,212*
2001 4.77* 9,312*
2004 1.53* 1,767*
2007 2.95* 807*
Revised 2007 (on 947 acre site only) 2.32 377
*Does not include impacts to wetlands and streams due to required off-site infrastructure
improvements (see Sections 8.2 and 8.3 and Appendix A, Figure A-4 for information regarding
total impacts, on and off site.).
Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. February 16, 2011 Revision 1 Page 37
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
8.0 Impacts to jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams 0
8.1 Introduction
The narrative description for unavoidable impact to jurisdictional wetlands and streams is
divided into two sections; those within and those outside of the development footprint. This
section on unavoidable impact to wetlands and streams provides a clear example of the
University's continuing efforts at avoidance and minimization. A concerted effort by the
University and its planning team resulted in no impact to streams within the development
footprint. By tightly clustering proposed development on existing disturbed areas and the
closed landfill, all wetland impacts are to low quality wetlands having a mitigation ratio of 1:1.
The University made certain design assumptions when evaluating the impacts to wetlands
and/or streams. For example, where a fill slope is required for the improvement, a 15 foot area
beyond the toe of the fill slope is assumed to be included within the construction limits. This
approach should allow sufficient flexibility to build the project, and protect adjacent areas.
8.2 Impacts to Wetlands Within the Development Footprint
There are no impacts to streams within the development footprint of the Carolina North 50-year
plan. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands are described below and overview of impacts can be
seen in Appendix A, Figure A-4. Detailed figures in Appendix C are referenced below, and an
index map for the figures referenced in this section is located in Appendix C, Figure C-1. The •
acreage of wetland that falls within the construction limits is considered impacted.
Wetlands AA, Y and Z Impacts (see Appendix C, Figure C-3)
These three wetland areas are located in close proximity to the each other and on the closed
pre-regulatory municipal landfill's soil cap (see Appendix A, Figure A-4). Wetland Y is an
emergent and scrub/shrub wetland. Wetlands Z and AA are forested wetlands. Field indicators
of hydric soil and wetland hydrology developed due to differential settling of waste under the
landfill cap. Vegetation is hydrophytic, with Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) the
dominant herbaceous species. In North Carolina, this herbaceous, grass-like species is
considered an invasive species. Wetlands AA, Y and Z all receive polluted ground water and
leachate from the pre-regulatory municipal landfill and contain high concentrations of iron
bacteria.
Roads, buildings and parking are proposed for this portion of the site. Earthwork and
installation of required infrastructure are necessary to develop the campus consistent with the
Project Description, Purpose and Need (see Section 1.2). The Wetland Y impact is 0.130 acre,
Wetland Z is 1.214 acres, and Wetland AA impact is 0.014 acre, with the total impact equaling
1.358 acres.
•
Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. 12/23/2010 Page 38
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
Table D-2 Carolina North Impacts to Wetlands and Streams Outside of the Development
Footprint
0

Impacts to Wetlands Outside the Development Footprint
Wetland Acres Mitigation Ratio
A 0.099 1:1
X 0.143 2:1
2 0.005 2:1
3 0.011 2:1
T (5) 0.014 2:1
6 0.037 2:1
17 0.023 2:1
18 0.065 2:1
TOTAL 0.397 Acres
Impacts to Streams Outside the Development Footprint
Stream Linear Feet Mitigation Ratio
1 31 2:1
2 27 2:1
5A* 100 2:1
8 47 2:1
13 60 2:1
14A 174** 2:1
14B 20 2:1
Bolin Creek 21 2:1
Crow Br (Wetland A) 72 2:1
TOTALS 552
* stream 5A was classified as "isolated" by regulatory agencies
** 174 If of stream, classified as "unimportant" by regulatory agencies, no mitigation required
Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. February 16, 2011 Revision 1 Page 46
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
feet of perennial stream is proposed for unavoidable impact with construction of the
improvements is
Bolin Creek (see Appendix C, Figure C-9)
This perennial stream flows through the portion of the Carolina North property that will remain
undeveloped. The stream flows off site to the southeast and through a culvert under Estes
Drive Extension (see Appendix A, Figure A-3). This unavoidable impact is due to the water and
wastewater infrastructure connection from Carolina North to the OWASA system. Sanitary
sewer scalping force mains are proposed to carry wastewater from the existing OWASA Bolin
Creek interceptor to the proposed Carolina North reclaimed water production plant. A sanitary
sewer pump station is needed for the force main and the site was selected to avoid and
minimize impacts to streams and buffers. The proposed location is south of Bolin Creek, north
of the railroad tracks, and west of Estes Drive extension. The property is owned by OWASA and
is flatter than the land north of Bolin Creek. This location avoided impacts associated with the
pump station, though an unavoidable impact to cross the stream will be necessary. 21 linear
feet of perennial stream is proposed for unavoidable impact with construction of the
improvements.
The table below details unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams outside the development
footprint. This table can also be found in Appendix D, Table D-2.

Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. 12/23/2010 Page 45
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
Phase 2 (2016-2051)
Impacts associated with the remainder of the proposed 50-year Carolina North development
(See Figure E-1 in Appendix E).
The USACE is currently reviewing a position paper from UNC-CH related to mitigation for
wetlands that occur on the former municipal landfill. UNC-CH believes that these wetlands are
part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
program and, as such, impacts to them should not require mitigation. Until there is a
determination regarding the status of these wetlands, mitigation costs for Phase 2 cannot be
finalized. The attached tables summarize impacts and associated mitigation in two different
ways, one with the landfill wetland impacts excluded and one with the landfill wetland impacts
included.
A: Landfill wetland impacts excluded (Please see Phase 2, Table A, below and in Appendix D,
Table D-10.)
The University is proposing unavoidable impacts to 0.821 acre of jurisdictional wetlands and 247
linear feet of jurisdictional streams. The USACE requires mitigation for these impacts.
In addition, the University is proposing to impact 28,877 square feet (0.66 acre) of Jordan Lake
buffers. The DWQ requires mitigation for the Jordan Lake buffer impacts.
Total impacts in Phase 2A are 0.821 acre of wetlands, 247 linear feet of streams, and 28,877
• square feet (0.66 acre) of Jordan Lake buffers.
Phase 2: Carolina North Stream and Wetland Impacts Table A (Table D-10)
Wetlands
W
tl
d Impact Mi
i
i
i Mitigation Cost
e
an (ac) t
gat
on Rat
o $62,210 /acre
A 0.099 1:1 0.099 $6,159
AB 0.572 1:1 0.572 $35,584
3 0.011 2:1 0.022 $1,369
T (5) 0.014 2:1 0.028 $1,742
6 0.037 2:1 0.074 $4,604
17 0.023 2:1 0.046 $2,862
18 0.065 2:1 0.130 $8,087
SUBTOTAL 0.821 0.971 $60,406
rounded up to the next .25 acre 1.000 $62,210
credit for Phase 1 payment 0.250 $15,553
balance for Phase 2 0.750 $46,658
•
Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. February 16, 2011 Revision 1 Page 53
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
Streams
Stream Impact Miti
ti
R
ti Mitigation Cost
(If) ga
on
a
o $338 /If
2 27 2:1 54 $18,252
8 47 2:1 94 $31,772
13 60 2:1 120 $40,560
14 A* 174 N/A 0 $0
14 B 20 2:1 40 $13,520
Bolin Creek 21 2:1 42 $14,196
Crow Branch (Wetland A) 72 2:1 144 $48,672
SUBTOTAL 421 $166,972
*Channel designated as Ephemeral by NC DWQ and Unimportant by USACE-no mitigation required
1
Jordan Lake Buffer Impacts **
Impact Zone 1 (ft) Zone 2 (ft) Mitigation Cost
Stream (If) 3:1 1.5:1 $.96/sf
2 27 2,805 2,966 $12,349
8 47 3,825 2,799 $15,047
13 60 3,700 1,915 $13,414
14 B 20
Bolin Creek 21 1,809 1205 56,94
Crow Branch (Wetland A) 72 5,211 2,642 $18,812
total impact 247 17,350 11,527 28,877 $66,567
total required mitigation 52,050 17,291 69,341 $66,567
credit for stream restoration 22,680 15,120 37,800 $36,288
SUBTOTAL: net impact 29,370 2,171 31,541 $30,279
** please refer to figures in Appendix C for individual buffer area calculations
TOTAL WETLAND + STREAM + BUFFER = $243,908
B: Landfill wetland impacts included (Please see Phase 2, Table B, below and in Appendix D,
Table D-11.)
The University is proposing to impact 2.179 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 247 linear feet
of jurisdictional streams. The USACE requires mitigation for these impacts.
In addition, the University is proposing to impact 0.228 acre of isolated wetlands, 100 linear feet
of isolated stream and 38,242 square feet (0.88 acre) of Jordan Lake buffers. The DWQ requires
mitigation for the isolated wetland, isolated stream and Jordan Lake buffer impacts.
Total impacts in Phase 2B are 2.407 acres of wetlands, 347 feet of stream and 38,242 square
feet (0.88 acre) of Jordan Lake buffers. •
Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. February 16, 2011 Revision 1 Page 54
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
• Phase 2: Carolina North Stream and Wetland Impacts Table B (Table D-11)
•
•
Wetlands
W
tl
d Impact Mi
i
i
R
i Mitigation Cost
e
an (ac) gat
t
on
at
o $62,210/acre
A 0.099 1:1 0.099 $6,159
X* 0.143 2:1 0.286 $17,792
XA* 0.025 2:1 0.050 $3,111
XB* 0.06 2:1 0.120 $7,465
y 0.13 1:1 0.130 $8,087
Z 1.214 1:1 1.214 $75,523
AA 0.014 1:1 0.014 $871
AB 0.572 1:1 0.572 $35,584
3 0.011 2:1 0.022 $1,369
T (5) 0.014 2:1 0.028 $1,742
6 0.037 2:1 0.074 $4,604
17 0.023 2:1 0.046 $2,862
18 0.065 2:1 0.130 $8,087
TOTALS 2.407 2.785 $173,255
rounded up to the next .25 acre 3.000 $186,630
credit for Phase 1 payment 0.250 $15,553
balance for Phase 2 2.750 $171,078
* isolated wetlands
Streams
Stream Impact Miti
ation Rati Mitigation Cost
(If) g
o $338/lf
2 27 2:1 54 $18,252
5* 100 2:1 200 $67,600
8 47 2:1 94 $31,772
13 60 2:1 120 $40,560
14 A** 174 N/A 0 $0
14 B 20 2:1 40 $13,520
Bolin Creek 21 2:1 42 $14,196
Crow Branch (Wetland A) 72 2:1 144 $48,672
SUBTOTAL 521 694 $234,572
*isolated stream
**Channel designated as Ephemeral by DWQ and Unimportant by USACE-no mitigation required
Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. February 16, 2011 Revision 1 Page 55
Carolina North Individual Permit Application - December 2010
Jordan Lake Buffer Impac ts"
Impact Zone 1 (ft) Zone 2 (ft2) Mitigation Cost
Stream (If) 3:1 1.5:1 $.96/If
2 27 2,805 2,966 $12,349
5* 100 6,255 3,110 $22,493
8 47 3,825 2,799 $15,047
13 60 3,700 1,915 $13,414
14 B 20
Bolin Creek 21 1,809 1205 $6,945
Crow Branch (Wetland A) 72 5,211 2,642 $18,812
total impact 347 23,605 14,637 38,242 $89,060
total required mitigation 70,815 21,956 92,771 $89,060
credit for stream restoration 22,680 15,120 37,800 $36,288
SUBTOTAL: net impact 48,135 6,836 54,971 $52,
** please refer to figures in Appendix C for individual buffer area calculations
I TOTAL WETLAND + STREAM + BUFFER = $458,421
J
•
•
Prepared by: Biohabitats, Inc. February 16, 2011 Revision 1 Page 56