The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120550 Ver 1_401 Application_2012061220120550 W�-,Lp ECS CAROLINAS, LL Setting the Standard for Service c,s.u:1 L.am ^s Geotechnical Construction Materials Environmental Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F 1078 May 31 2012 Ms Karen Higgins NC DWQ 401/Wetlands Unit 512 North Salisbury Street Archdale Budding 9T" Floor Raleigh North Carolina 27604 Subject Pre - Construction Notification Application Request for 401 Water Quality Certification West 8T" Street — Culvert Replacement Kannapolis Rowan County North Carolina ECS Project 09 -20349 Dear Ms Higgins Please find five copies of the Pre - Construction Notification Application for the above referenced site The site is located on West 8T" Street in Kannapolis An e)asbng culvert beneath West 8T" Street is failing and needs to be replaced and realigned After the culvert is replaced West 8T" Street is going to be widened It is necessary to impact 146 6 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Irish Buffalo Creek There are no other stream or wetland impacts anticipated On behalf of Alley Williams Carmen and King (representatives of the City of Kannapolis), I am requesting that a 401 Water Quality Certficahon be issued to authorize the impact to 146 6 linear feet of perennial stream channel The attached application provides details pertaining to the impacts Please feel free to contact me at (336) 856 -7150 tf you have any questions concerning this request or if additional information is required Thank you in advance for your timely consideration of this matter Sincerely ECS Carolinas, LLP D L5 � 111J I Michael T Brame PWS JUN 1 Senior Environmental Scientist Attachment Pre Construction Notification Application 401 Water Quality Certification Fee $240 00 4811 Koger Boulevard Greensboro NC 27407 T 336 856 7150 F 336 856 7160 www ecslimited corn ECS Carolinas LLP ECS Florida LLC ECS Mid Atlantic LLC ECS Southeast LLC ECS Texas LLP pF W ATF9pG o c 20120550 Office Use Only Corps action ID no DWQ project no Form Version 13 Dec 10 2008 Page 1of12 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form A Apphcant Information 1 Processing 1 a Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps ®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit 1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 3 or General Permit (GP) number 1c Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ❑ No 1 d Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply) ® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization le Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401 Certification ❑ Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit ❑ Yes ® No 1f Is payment into a mitigation bank or in lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts If so attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in lieu fee program ❑ Yes ® No 1 g Is the project located in any of NC s twenty coastal counties If yes answer 1 h below ❑ Yes ® No 1h Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes ® No 2 Project Information 2a Name of project 87" Street Culvert Replacement 2b County Rowan 2c Nearest municipality /town Kannapolis 2d Subdivision name NA 2e NCDOT only T I P or state project no 3 Owner Information 3a Name(s) on Recorded Deed Property right of ways and easements are being secured by the City of Kannapolis 3b Deed Book and Page No NA 3c Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable) ADM 3d Street address 3e City state zip 3f Telephone no ?01 3g Fax no Gwe CY,q 3h Email address Page 1of12 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version 4 Applicant Information (if different from owner) 4a Applicant is ❑ Agent ® Other specify Civil firm contracted by the City of Kannapolis 4b Name Mr Jeff Moody 4c Business name (if applicable) Alley Williams Carmen & King 4d Street address 120 South Main Street 4e City state zip Kannapolis NC 28082 4f Telephone no 704 938 1515 4g Fax no 704 938 6810 4h Email address Imoody@awck com 5 Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) 5a Name Michael Brame 5b Business name (if applicable) ECS Carolinas LLP 5c Street address 812 Pinoak Road 5d City state zip Greensboro NC 27407 5e Telephone no 336 856 7150 5f Fax no 336 856 7160 5g Email address mbrame @ecslimited com Page 2 of 12 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version B Project Information and Prior Project History 1 Property Identification 1a Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID) City of Kannapolis is securing easement Latitude 35 507942 Longitude 1 b Site coordinates (in decimal degrees) 80 625456 (DD DDDDDD) ( DD DDDDDD) 1 c Property size NA acres 2 Surface Waters 2a Name of nearest body of water (stream river etc ) to Irish Buffalo Creek proposed project 2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water Class C 2c River basin Yadkin 3 Project Description 3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application The site consists of West 8T" Street and the existing right -of way In the area of the existing crossing West 8T" Street contains fill and has historically been raised in elevation Steep slopes are located adjacent to West 8T" Street The existing culvert is failing due to the steep gradient and improper alignment The down gradient end of the culvert is eroding has slumping banks and is contributing sediment into down gradient waterbodies The area has eroded to the extent that the integrity of nearby utilities and West 8T" Street are jeopardized The culvert must be replaced and realigned to stabilize the stream which will prevent additional sediment from entering down gradient waterbodies and avoid further damage to the stream banks nearby slopes and utilities Upon completion of the culvert replacement the road will be widened from 18 to 32 feet to satisfy City of Kannapolis requirements The site is located in a commercial /residential area of Kannapolis A recycling center single family residences a greenway and wooded land are located adjacent to the site an existing road 3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property No wetlands are located within the project area The stream is high banked 3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property In order to install a new culvert correct the angle of water entering and exiting the culvert and dissipate the energy of the water produced by a steep gradient (the down gradient end of the culvert will have a self contained stilling basin) before the water discharges into the existing stream bed it is necessary to impact 146 6 linear feet of perennial stream channel 3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project The purpose of the proposed project is to replace an existing culvert that has failed and widen the road to satisfy City of Kannapolis requirements 3e Describe the overall project in detail including the type of equipment to be used The existing culvert is a 9 X 3 5 granite box culvert The culvert will be replaced with a 8 X 7 cast in place box culvert and SAF stilling basin Water will flow through the existing culvert during the construction of the new culvert Haulers loaders excavators cranes and other heavy equipment will be used to install the new culvert Page 3 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version 4 Jurisdictional Determinations 4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / project (including all prior phases) in the past? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown Comments Verification meeting with Mr Jeff Moody and Mr Alan Johnson on October 11 2011 4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination what type El Preliminary ❑Final of determination was made9 4c If yes who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company ECS Carolinas LLP Name (if known) Brad Luckey Other 4d If yes list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation Mr Moody informed us that the delineation has been verified by the DWQ 5 Project History 5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for El Yes No Unknown this project (including all prior phases) in the past 5b If yes explain in detail according to help file instructions 6 Future Project Plans 6a Is this a phased project? ❑Yes ® No 6b If yes explain Page 4 of 12 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version C Proposed Impacts Inventory 1 Impacts Summary 1 a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply) ❑ Wetlands ® Streams tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction 2 Wetland Impacts If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site then complete this question for each wetland area impacted 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction number — Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps 404 10 Area of impact Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non -404 other) (acres) Temporary T W1 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps ❑ No ❑ DWQ W2 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps ❑ No ❑ DWQ W3 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps ❑ No ❑ DWQ W4 ❑ P [IT ❑ Yes ❑ Corps ❑ No ❑ DWQ W5 ❑ P [IT ❑ Yes ❑ Corps ❑ No ❑ DWQ W6 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps ❑ No ❑ DWQ 2g Total wetland unpacts 2h Comments Wetland impacts are not proposed 3 Stream Impacts If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site then complete this question for all stream sites impacted 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 3g Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact number (PER) or (Corps 404 10 stream length Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non -404 width (linear Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet) S1 ® P ❑ T Culvert/Rip Rap Unnamed ® PER ❑ INT ® Corps ® DWQ 13 1466 S2 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps ❑ INT ❑ DWQ S3 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps ❑ INT ❑ DWQ S4 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps ❑ INT ❑ DWQ S5 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps ❑ INT ❑ DWQ S6 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps ❑ INT ❑ DWQ 3h Total stream and tributary impacts 31 Comments in order to accommodate the gradient and properly realign the culvert to prevent future culvert failure it is necessary to impact 146 6 linear feet of stream channel Page 5 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version 4 Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes ponds estuaries tributaries sounds the Atlantic Ocean or any other open water of the U S then individually list all open water impacts below 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e Open water Name of waterbody impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres) Permanent (P) or Tern ora 01 ❑P ❑T 02 ❑P ❑T 03 ❑P ❑T 04 ❑ PEI 4f Total open water unpacts 4g Comments Open water impacts are not proposed 5 Pond or Lake Construction If pond or lake construction proposed then complete the chart below 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres) number of pond Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded P1 P2 5f Total 5g Comments Pond/Lake construction is not proposed 5h Is a dam high hazard permit required? ❑ Yes No If yes permit ID no 51 Expected pond surface area (acres) 5I Size of pond watershed (acres) 5k Method of construction 6 Buffer Impacts (for DWO) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer then complete the chart below If yes then individually list all buffer impacts below If any impacts require mitigation then you MUST fill out Section D of this form 6a ❑ Neuse ❑ Tar Pamlico ❑ Other Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman 6b 6c 6d 6e 6f 6g Buffer impact number — Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet) Temporary impact required 131 ❑P ❑T ❑Yes ❑ No B2 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ No B3 ❑P ❑T El Yes ❑ No 6h Total buffer impacts 61 Comments The site is not located in an area that is subject to the N C Division of Water Quality Riparian Buffer Rules Page 6 of 12 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version D Impact Justification and Mitigation 1 Avoidance and Minimization is Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project The area of impact is an existing culvert beneath West 8T" Street The existing culvert is fading and must be replaced It is jeopardizing the integrity of West 8T" Street nearby utilities and contributing sediment to downgradient waterbodies Therefore leaving the culvert in place is not a feasible alternative and would have far greater environmental and economical impact than culvert replacement The gradient of the existing culvert is steep (approximately 13 feet of drop) In order to meet engineering specifications and prevent future culvert failure the culvert must be realigned In order to accommodate the steep gradient not only does the culvert have to be lengthened a stilling basin must be constructed within the lower end of the cast in place culvert Without the stilling basin the culvert would have to be even longer and result in additional stream impacts Headwalls and endwalls are being constructed to minimize impacts The culvert design limitations and other project details were discussed in a pre application meeting that took place on January 23 2012 with Mr Alan Johnson with the NCDENR Division of Water Quality Mr Jeff Moody and Mr Wes Webb with Alley Williams Carmen & King and Mr Michael Brame and Mr David Brame with ECS Carolinas LLP An alternative to the proposed action would be to reroute the road or create a new road Not only are these alternatives not practical or economically feasible additional stream and wetland impacts would be unavoidable The integrity of the stream channel that is being impacted is currently impaired and contains minimal aquatic habitat The proposed design is avoiding impacts to other portions of the stream that are less impaired The portion of the stream that is being impacted is significantly degraded due to the existing culvert failure The bed is eroding the banks are slumping and there is minimal aquatic habitat Nearby slopes are scouring and slumping The sediment generated from the existing situation is being discharged down stream and is effecting the water quality The redesigned culvert will alleviate the sediment from being discharged from the unstable system 1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques The existing culvert will be used to by pass water around the construction area of the new culvert To install the downgradient end of the culvert within the existing stream channel a coffer dam will be constructed so that water can be pumped around the construction area The coffer dam will be situated in a area of the stream that will be permanently impacted Best Management Practices including the use of erosion control fencing and seeding will be used to avoid and minimize the amount of sediment that will impact downgradient streams and wetlands 2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State 2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑ Yes ® No impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State? 2b If yes mitigation is required by (check all that apply) ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps ❑ Mitigation bank 2c If yes which mitigation option will be used for this project? ❑ Payment to in lieu fee program ❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3 Complete if Using a Mdigation Bank 3a Name of Mitigation Bank 3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity Page 7 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version 3c Comments 4 Complete if Making a Payment to in lieu Fee Program 4a Approval letter from in lieu fee program is attached ❑ Yes 4b Stream mitigation requested linear feet 4c If using stream mitigation stream temperature ❑ warm ❑ cool []cold 4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only) square feet 4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested acres 4f Non riparian wetland mitigation requested acres 4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested acres 4h Comments 5 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan 6 Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWO 6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation? ❑ Yes ® No 6b If yes then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the amount of mitigation required Zone 6c Reason for impact 6d Total impact (square feet) Multiplier 6e Required mitigation (square feet) Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) Zone 2 15 6f Total buffer mitigation required 6g If buffer mitigation is required discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g payment to private mitigation bank permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration payment into an approved in lieu fee fund) 6h Comments Page 8 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version E Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ) 1 Diffuse Flow Plan 1a Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑ Yes ® No within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? 1 b If yes then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no explain why ❑ Yes No ❑ Comments 2 Stormwater Management Plan Roadway Project The road is 2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? being widened as a result from 18 feet to 32 feet wide % 2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ❑ No 2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan explain why 2d If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan then provide a brief narrative description of the plan A Four Phase Erosion Control Plan has been prepared and submitted to the City of Kannapolis for review and approval (Attached) Phase I Prior to beginning installation of the new culvert an impervious dike will be constructed upstream of the road crossing to divert water through the existing culvert Phase 11 Prior to constructing the Saint Anthony s Falls Stilling Basin on the lower end of the culvert a dike must be constructed Water will be pumped around the construction area and into a silt bag before being discharged downstream of the construction area Phase III Move upgradient dike and divert water through new culvert (old culvert to be removed) Phase iV Upon completion of the culvert replacement the road will be widened and stormwater runoff will be diverted into one of two temporary silt ponds ® Certified Local Government 2e Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program ❑ DWQ 401 Unit 3 Certified Local Government Stormwater Review 3a In which local governments jurisdiction is this project? City of Kannapolis ® Phase II 3b Which of the following locally implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW ❑ USMP apply (check all that apply) ❑ Water Supply Watershed ❑ Other 3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ® No attached? 4 DWQ Stormwater Program Review ❑ Coastal counties 4a Which of the following state implemented stormwater management programs apply ❑ HQW ❑ ORW (check all that apply) ❑ Session Law 2006 246 ® Other Phase II Community Page 9 of 12 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version 4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been attached? ❑ Yes ® No 5 DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review 5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ❑ Yes ❑ No F Supplementary Information 1 Environmental Documentation (DWO Requirement) la Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ❑ Yes ® No use of public (federal/state) land? lb If you answered `yes to the above does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes ® No (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? 1c If you answered "yes to the above has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (if so attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter) ❑ Yes ® No Comments A NEPA or SEPA is not required as part of this project 2 Violations (DWO Requirement) 2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500) Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300) DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards ❑ Yes ® No or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)? 2b Is this an after the fact permit application? ❑ Yes ® No 2c If you answered "yes to one or both of the above questions provide an explanation of the violation(s) 3 Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement) 3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes ® No additional development which could impact nearby downstream water quality? 3b If you answered yes to the above submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent DWQ policy If you answered no provide a short narrative description The site is an existing road that is used by the community The proposed action is not expected to impact future development within the area 4 Sewage Disposal (DWO Requirement) 4a 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 The proposed project will not generate and does not involve wastewater Page 10 of 12 PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version 5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) 5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ Yes ® No habitat? 5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ❑ Yes No impacts? 5c If yes indicate the USFWS Feld Office you have contacted El Raleigh ® Asheville 5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? ECS consulted the Natural Heritage Program Website to determine if Federally Protected Endangered or Threatened species inhabit quadrangles containing the site or in the immediate vicinity of the site The site is located near the intersection of the Encochville China Grove Kannapolis and Concord NC Quadrangles There are no federally protected endangered or threatened species that have been identified on these quadrangles Based on our knowledge of the site the project will not impact endangered species or designated critical habitat In addition ECS, has contacted Mr Bryan Tompkins with the USFWS in Asheville North Carolina to confirm Currently we are waiting for a response 6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes ® No 6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? The NCDENR has classified the stream located on the site as Class C waters Based on our knowledge of the site the project does not occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat 7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement) 7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ® No status (e g National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)? 7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? We reviewed the NC State Historic Preservation Office interactive map (HPOWEB GIS Service Attached) The map did not identify designated sites within 1 000 feet of the project area Page 11 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version 8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a Will this project occur in a FEMA designated 100 year floodplain? ® Yes ❑ No 8b If yes explain how project meets FEMA requirements Alley Williams Carmen and King has completed a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) study to satisfy FEMA requirements The letter is being submitted to North Carolina Flood Mapping for review and approval The project cannot be constructed until the CLOMR study is approved 8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 3710561400J Attached) and information provided by Alley Williams Carmen and King 31 Zet Applicant/Agent s Printed Name Applicant/Agent s Signature Date (Agents signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided Page 12 of 12 PCN Form - Version 13 December 10 2008 Version '-`\\mmvmw com N � � EXMT EASOT]Ir c WPACT AREA So, at \ \ p \ \ PLAT BMX 9995 0064 LWATTU IR UiPAarMEABUA® In= MOST wax CULVErr OUTLEr \ ToLam OVERAGE m +8138 � R ' J MUST VA&W ' i TOGRAVITS MR GULVEwr k \\ an ramaram — r � � GM�ACT AREA Ila. T SM LF STREAM IMPACT MEASURED FRMGXW On CULVERT` "am r PROPOSED SU x Tyr CAST TO LIMITS OF ORTURSAMCB d PLACE SOI[ CULVERT OVERAGE STREAM TTIOTM tt FT) AMO SAF STUABM ®ABGI t' I f .4 ft � V� �r LEGEND STREAM DELINEATION - — — — -_ — — I NOTE STREAM LOCATIDN AS DELINEATED BY ECS CAROLINAS LLP PRELIMINARY DRAWINGI DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING ENGINEERS W 8TH STREET CULVERT REPLACEMENT +u, s�#� CITY OF KANNAPOus STREAM IMPACT "' "° KANNAPOUS NORTH CAROLINA AREAS e°i street Culvert Replacement Kannspolls North Carolina ECS Proposal No 18261 -P September26 2011 ECS Carolinas, LLP AGENT AUTHORIZATION This form authorizes ECS to act as our agent in streamMetland matters Including U S Army Corps of Engineers and North Carodna Division of Water Quality field verification and permit application Property Address i&h 5M I= ° � avu.. A 1F6tM6-5rr bye Telephone Number Fax Number E mall Address Signature Date 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/site 8th Street Replacement Culvert City /County Kannapolis /Rowan Sampling Date October 10 2011 Applicant/Owner Alley Williams Carmen and King state INC Sampling Point DP 1 lnvestigator(s) Brad Luckey ECS Section Township Range Landform (hdlslope terrace etc) Terrace Local relief (concave convex none) Slope (°/) 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) Lal. Long Datum Sod Map Unit Name Pacolet sandy loam NWI classification Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects. important features etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydnc Sod Present? Yes ®� No within a Wetland? Yes (Mo Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No V Wetland hydrology and hydric sod Indicators are not present The sampling point is not located within a wetland HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology indicators Sepondary Indicators (minimum of two reauiredl Primary Indigilliors nhylM Surface Soil Cracks (B6) i Surface Water (A1) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) __,_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Drainage Patterns (810) — Saturation (A3) , Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (B1) — Presence of Reduced Iran (C4) i Dry Season Water Table (C2) _„ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) — Iron Deposits (135) i Geomorphic Position (02) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _— Water Stained Leaves (89) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC Neutral Test (135) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches) Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ncludes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available Remarks Wetland hydrology Indicators are not present US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants 30 feet Tree Stratum (Plot size ) 1 Liquidambar styracdlua 2 Acer rubrum Absolute Dominant Indicator /o Cover Species? Status 30 Yes FAC+ 20 FAC 3 Befula mgra 15 FACW 4 Corpus Honda 15 FACU 5 x4= 8 UPL species x6= Column Totals 7 (A) 22 (B) 7 8 Sao lina /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30 feet 1 Corpus Honda � ) 30 = Total Cover Yes FACU 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 � = Herb Stratum (Plot size otal Cover e 30 feet ) 1 Parthenocissus qurnquefolra 25 Yes FAC 2 Smilax rotunddofla 5 FAC 3 4 5 6 7 6 g 10 Sampling Point DP 1 Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL FACW or FAC 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata 3 (�) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL FACW or FAC 6746 (Ali) Total % Cover of Mufoly by OBL species x 1 = FACW species ' x 2 = 2 FAC species 4 x3- 12 FACU species 2 x4= 8 UPL species x6= Column Totals 7 (A) 22 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 314 _ 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50 /. 3 Prevalence Index is s3 0' _ 4 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be present unless disturbed or problematic Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata Tree - Woody plants excluding vines 3 in (7 6 cm) or more In diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of height SaplinglShrub - Woody plants excluding vines less than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall 19 Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants regardless of size and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall 12 = Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30 feet 30 Total Cover ) 1 2 3 - - -- 4 5 6 - -- = Total Cover memams trnciuoe pnow numoers nere or on a separates The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 it in height Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Vol No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Intenm Version $t c i i Y t f SOIL Sampling Point DP 1 Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Eeatures (inches) Color (moist) A Color (moist) A Tvoe Texture Remarks 04 10 YR 3/3 100 SL 4-12 10 YR 413 100 L 'Type C= Concentration D= Depletion RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand _Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lmina M= Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sods' — Histosol (Al) , Dark Surface (S7) — 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) ® Histic Epipedon (A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147 148) (MLRA 147 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (-RR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (176) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ! Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (.RR N _ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (-RR N MLRA 147 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ® Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) ® Piedmont Floodpiain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic Restncbve Layer (if observed) Type - Depth (inches) Hydnc Sod Present? Yes No d I Hydric soil indicators are not present US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U S Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) May 31 2012 B DISTRICT OFFICE FILE NAME AND NUMBER Asheville, Calvert Replacement West 8TH Street, ECS Project No 09 20349 PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION State NC County/pansh/bomugh Rowan City Kannapolis Center coordinates of site Oattlong in degree decimal format) Lat 35 507942 ® Long 80 625456 Umversal Transverse Mercator Name of nearest waterbody Irish Buffalo Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows Irish Buffalo Creek Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Yadkin Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas istare available upon request Check if other sites (e g offsite mitigation sites disposal sites etc ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form D REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) Office (Desk) Determination Date Field Determination Date(s) Meeting took place with Alley Williams Carmen and King SECTION H SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION There Aire navigable waters of the US within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) junsdichon (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce Explain B CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION There PiR `waters of the U S within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area [Required] I Waters of the U.S a Inchoate presence of waters of U S in review area (check all that apply) i TNWs including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Non RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters including isolated wetlands Identify (estmiate) size of waters of the U S in the review area Non wetland waters 1501mear feet 13 width (ft) and/or 0 05 acres Wetlands acres Limits (boundaries) of junsdiction based onD n Elevation of established OHWM (if known) Unknown Non regulated watersfwetlands (check if applicable) 3 0 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional Explain ` Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section HI below 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year round or has continuous flow at least seasonally' (e g typically 3 months) 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III F SECTION III CWA ANALYSIS A TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs If the aquatic resource is a TNW complete Section IILA.1 and Section EILD 1 only if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW complete Sections III A.1 and 2 and Section EOLD 1 otherwise see Section III.B below 1 TNW Identify TNW Summarize rationale supporting determination Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is adjacent B CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY) This section summanzes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapaum have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are `relatively permanent waters (RPWs) i.e. tributaries that typically flow year round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months) A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW but has year round (perennial) flow slap to Section IILD.2 If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow slap to Section EILDA A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions wM include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law If the waterbody° is not an RPW or a wetland directly abutting an RPW a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B 1 for the tributary Section 1ILB.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IILB3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below 1 Characteristics of non TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (1) General Area Conditions Watershed size 131 Drainage area. 131 Average annual rainfall 45 9 inches Average annual snowfall 5 5 inches (u) Physical Characteristics (a) Relationship with TNW ❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW ® Tributary flows through I tributaries before entering TNW Project waters are (or river miles from TNW Project waters are (or less river miles from RPW Project waters are (or less aerial (straight) miles from TNW Project waters are orless aerial (straight) miles from RPW Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries Explain Identify flow route to TNW` The unnamed tributary that crosses the site flows into Irish Buffalo Creek which flows into the Yadkin River 4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales ditches washes and erosional features generally and in the and West 5 Flow route can be described by identifying e g tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b which then flows into TNW Tributary stream order if known Second (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that goly) Tnbutary is ❑ Natural ❑ Artificial (man made) Explain ® Mampulated (man altered) Explain Some areas have been historically altered Tnbutary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate) Average width 13 feet Average depth 6 feet Average side slopes er ii Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply) ® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete ® Cobbles ® Gravel ® Muck ® Bedrock ® Vegetation Type/% cover 80 ❑ Other Explain Tributary condition/stability [e g highly eroding sloughing banks] Explain Highly eroding Slumping banks Presence of run/riffle/ 1 complexes Explain Moderate amount of riffle pool complexes Tributary geometry Tributary gradient (approximate average slope) 3 % (c) Flow Tributary provides for Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year Describe flow regime Constant Other information on duration and volume Surface flow is and iidiQ Characteristics Subsurface flow o I Explain findings ❑ Dye (or other) test performed Tributary has (check all that apply) ® Bed and banks ® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply) ® clear natural lme impressed on the bank ® changes in the character of soil ® shelving ® vegetation matted down bent, or absent ® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ® sediment deposition ® water staining ❑ other (list) ❑ Discontinuous OHWM 7 Explain the presence of litter and debris destruction of terrestrial vegetation the presence of wrack line sediment sorting scour multiple observed or predicted flow events abrupt change in plant community If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply) High Tide Line indicated by ® Mean High Water Mark indicated by ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum ❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings ❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation Imes/changes in vegetation types ❑ tidal gauges ❑ other (list) (m) Chemical Charactenshcs Characterize tributary (e g water color is clear discolored, oily film water quality general watershed characteristics etc ) Explain Water color is relatively clear There are sediment deposits Identify specific pollutants if known No sheens observed 6A natural or man made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e g where the stream temporanly flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices) Where there is a break m the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody s flow regime (e g flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert) the agencies will look for mdicatois of flow above and below the break. 'Ibid (iv) Biological Characteristics Channel supports (check all that apply) ® Riparian condor Characteristics (type average width) Narrow in most areas ❑ Wetland fringe Characteristics ® Habitat for ❑ Federally Listed species Explain findings ❑ Fish/spawn areas Explain findings ❑ Other environmentally sensitive species Explain findings ® Aquatic/wildlife diversity Explain findings Crayfish were observed 2 Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics (a) General Wetland Characteristics Properties Wetland size acres Wetland type Explain Wetland quality Explain Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries Explain (b) General Flow Relationship with Non TNW Flow is Ki Explain Saturated to surface Surface flow is Characteristics No surface flow Subsurface flow Explain findings ❑ Dye (or other) test performed (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non TNW ❑ Directly abutting — ❑ Not directly abutting ❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection Explain ❑ Ecological connection Explain ❑ Separated by berm/bamer Explain (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are river miles from TNW Project waters are ffi&Lbfaenal (straight) miles from TNW Flow is from Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ® floodplain (n) Chemical Characteristics Characterize wetland system (e g water color is clear brown oil film on surface water quality general watershed characteristics etc ) Explain Identify specific pollutants if known Unknown (m) Biological Characteristics Wetland supports (check all that apply) ❑ Ripanan buffer Characteristics (type average width) ❑ Vegetation typelpercent cover Explain ❑ Habitat for ❑ Federally Listed species Explain findings ❑ Fish/spawn areas Explain findings ❑ Other environmentally sensitive species Explain findings ❑ Aquatic/wddlife diversity Explain findings 3 Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if an ) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis For each wetland specify the following Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological chemical and physical functions being performed C SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analyses will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integnty of a TNW For each of the following situations a significant nexus exists if the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insabstantmal effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not hunted to the volume duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW) Similarly the fact an adjacent wedand hes within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example • Does the tributary in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any) have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any) provide habitat and hfecycle support functions for fish and other species such as feeding nesting spawning or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any) have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any) have other relationships to the physical chemical or biological integrity of the TNW? Note the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below Significant nexus findings for non RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below based on the tributary itself then go to Section III D Significant nexus findings for non RPW and its adjacent wetlands where the non RPW flows dnrecay or indirectly into TNWs Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands then go to Section III D They are connected directly to RPWs on this site Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands then go to Section III D The wetlands are located in the floodplams; adjacent to the streams and in other areas are connected by non jurisdictional drainage features D DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CBECK ALL THAT APPLY) 1 TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area TNWs lmear feet width (ft) Or acres Wetlands adjacent to TNWs acres RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year round are jurisdictional Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial Crayfish iron oxidizing bacteria, substrate sorting riffle pool complexes and ordinary high water mark were observed ® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow seasonally' (e g typically three months each year) are jurisdictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III B Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply) RX Tributary waters 150 linear feet 13 width (ft) Other non wetland waters acres Identify type(s) of waters 3 Non RPWss that flow durectly or indirectly into TNWs. ® Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III C Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply) ®Tributary waters linear feet width (ft) Other non wetland waters acres Identify type(s) of waters 4 Wetlands dnrectly abutting an RPW that flow duvctly or mduwdy into TNWs ® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands ® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year round Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III D 2 above Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW ® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow seasonally Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section BIB and rationale in Section III D 2 above Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW Physically connected or connected by a drainage feature or floodplain hydrology Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area acres 5 Wetlands adjacent to but not drectly abutting an RPW that flow du ecdy or indirectly mto TNWs. ® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands have a significant nexus with a TNW are junsidictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III C Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area acres 6 Wetlands adjacent to non RPWs that flow durectly or indirectly mto TNWs. ® Wetlands adjacent to such waters and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III C Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area acres 7 Impoundments of jurisdictional waters 9 As a general rule the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional Demonstrate that impoundment was created from waters of the U S or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6) or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below) E ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA STATE] WATERS INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS THE USE DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 10 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce Interstate isolated waters Explain Other factors Explain 'See Footnote # 3 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section HLD 6 of the Instructional Guidebook 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Ad JunsAchon Following Rapanos Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination Provide estimates for Jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply) ®Tributary waters 1501inear feetl3width (ft) Other non wetland waters acres Identify type(s) of waters ® Wetlands acres F NON JURISDICTIONAL WATERS INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) ❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements ® Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce ❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in SWANCC the review area would have been regulated based solely on the Migratory Bird Rule (MBR) Waters do not meet the Significant Nexus standard where such a finding is required for jurisdiction Explain Other (explain if not covered above) Provide acreage estimates for non Jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of Jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i a presence of migratory birds presence of endangered species use of water for irrigated agriculture) using best professional udgment (check all that apply) Non wetland waters (i a rivers streams) linear feet width (ft) Lakes/ponds acres Other non wetland waters acres List type of aquatic resource Wetlands acres Provide acreage estimates for non Jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the Significant Nexus standard where such a fording is required for Jurisdiction (check all that apply) Non wetland waters (i a rivers streams) Imear feet, width (ft) Lakestponds acres Other non wetland waters acres List type of aquatic resource Wetlands acres SECTION IV DATA SOURCES A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply checked items shall be included in case file and where checked and requested appropriately reference sources below) ®Maps plans plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicandconsultant Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant ❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delmeation report Data sheets prepared by the Corps Corps navigable waters study U S Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas ❑ USGS NHD data RX ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps U S Geological Survey map(s) Cite scale & quad name Enochvdle China Grove Kannapolis and Concord USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Citation Guilford County NCSS Website National wetlands inventory map(s) Cite name State/Local wetland inventory map(s) FEMA/FIRM maps 3710561400J 100 -year Floodplam Elevation is (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs ® Aerial (Name & Date) GPS Map / Aenal Photo Dated 2010 or ❑ Other (Name & Date) Previous determination(s) File no and date of response letter Applicable/supporting case law Applicable/supportmg scientific literature Other information (please specify) B ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD The stream on the site is perennial The site has reportedly been venfied by the U S Army Corps of Engineers Permits are required from the USACE and DWQ for impacts to the stream � �+ + ~ ~~ { � # » »� . %. .. . � 9 +1 ~� & «� .. . . .. A . . ■ a,� go■- 2� /' —. . � . � 4 � w Yem%f , � �A@uGmH f� .�m � . 0 .% &S_ ¥ � -' o ` % .. _ � .. : < � / & � 2 / 3: Kn Av e � � ¥ ® c � f A , s �■ ■ s � w c x 1 0 N O c� CI ,S� IN Sol for IF 9 CQ 11fir 19 J ON ! � — _ �8 I R Soak~ ;.. I ji 0 1 1 2 1 11 z IN 1110 I ! a O co doll h, milli NallPis � i tl� l �n b •�1 � � le b 's 9a�'� RAN INK d, [� rn N d d � W\ 1111 Y11 It LAL Res 0 Nil It v 0 ol \,1 / e i ■p8 1,1� �jl � � / � _�_ o J / ?-_ W all / ! Ids 1 ��o �F' dli e W I / `� �� Z d3 � g 1 tltl ,�y se �\ lil f/ f � � I II III' R a t� j ` \� o0 \� f : '�' Ff I - - =.- -: - -- -:E �r -- J if 11 I r� row X' � I � Hill ku \ �p4 g1 I I I �J �I 91 W'd A -- --�� 11g 411 I � - Zr I / / / M .i 0 0 Oa Wa �O H duo P� U 1( z W w z rn 0O Q'+Or,j azH a � Z v E- :1 W O W� E U z x h co Im xe W �p ♦� \\J01 LL R�itljI i a M ko a Ws 16 gill Old e I d sty IRE ; ; 0 CID i , I;lg I ;I I s, -- - - - - -- „ o,�T �', 1 ' , � � 1115a 11111111 ! IS 9 U NI of 4 b d d d 1 w✓ "il / 111 , �9=/ di 1 / / dam 1� / / 1 / .�,, ,,' , '41 I J; t'A� +� —p /p 11 �\ �■ !! ,u + 1 '''1 ii FI \\� \\ Z E, . As APBs /� 9 — e■ pi �, !8 a HIM. !!!! sk- O eii c W �m i �/ ' `� /� — ` �� /� /� ,� •— — ��.��` js y do Is 1 I tuie Dow vow a M ko a Ws 16 gill Old e I d sty IRE ; ; 0 CID i , I;lg I ;I I s, -- - - - - -- „ o,�T �', 1 ' , � � 1115a 11111111 ! IS 9 U NI of 4 b d d d 1 w✓ "il / 111 , �9=/ di 1 / / dam 1� / / 1 / .�,, ,,' , '41 I J; t'A� +� —p /p 11 �\ �■ !! ,u + 1 '''1 ii FI \\� \\ Z E, . As APBs /� 9 — e■ pi �, !8 a HIM. !!!! sk- O eii c W �m i �/ ' `� /� — ` �� /� /� ,� •— — ��.��` js y do Is 1 I 6 f r F- r-- 1 1 �JAd fl) U, ` n a FOANM YPSK e, �I 1 A 1 I \ 1' a I 9 I 1! fig. Ak 0 oa a d, o a W E.' �z o P4 0 P4 Z I N ri i old ndat � d // I I / g i .ra E \ 44 - \ el I 1 Pi , i x ,i � c W �m f> % i '�-• —�.� _ �! U do m W df E to I�11, -lil I � Iii a �