20080750 Ver 1_401 Application_20080408

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info: 0 7 5 0
OS
1. Project Name Kannapolis Bio-Repository
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: DHM Holding Company; Ms. Lynne Safrit
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc; Mr. Craig R. Wyant
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s)
None
5. Site Address: N. Cannon Blvd. and Chipola Rd. Kannapolis, NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Kannapolis
8. County: Cabarrus
9. Lat: N35.49384° Long: W80.60993° (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Concord, North Carolina, dated 1991
11. Waterway: UT to Cold Water Creek
12. Watershed: Yadkin (HU # 03040105)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 39
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder
Assign number in ORM
o [R @ Rp ;°J f ' ?p
APR 9 2008
DENR - WATEk t UAU 11
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
L crows
T..?a??ara'fidelland Services
April 25, 2008
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
Mr. Steve Lund
U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 39
Kannapolis Bio-Repository
Kannapolis, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2007-2097
The Kannapolis Bio-Repository site is located in Kannapolis, North Carolina, in the southeast corner
of the North Cannon Boulevard - Chipola Road intersection (Figure 1, enclosed). The purpose of this
project is to construct a new bio-repository facility which will provide frozen storage of research
specimens for the North Carolina Research Campus. DHM Holding Company has contracted
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this
project.
Applicant Name: DHM Holding Company, Ms. Lynne Safrit
Mailing Address: 226 Oak Avenue, Kannapolis, NC 28081
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-938-5400
Street Address of Project: N. Cannon Blvd. and Chipola Rd., Karmapolis, NC
Waterway: UT to Cold Water Creek
Basin: Yadkin (HU# 03040105)
City: Kannapolis
County: Cabarrus
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.49384°, W80.60993°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Concord, North Carolina, 1991
Current Land Use
This project is located on an undeveloped parcel of land within an existing commercial area with
adjacent residential and institutional land uses. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists
of broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), blackberry (Rubes argutus), soft stem rush (Juncus effusus),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and various grasses (Festuca sp.). According to the Soil
Survey of Cabarrus County', on-site soils consist of Cecil-Urban land complex (CeB). Cecil-Urban
soils are well-drained and exhibit moderate permeability.
Jurisdictional Delineation
On February 7, 2008, CWS's Matt Jenkins, WPIT and Paul Bright delineated jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. within the project area. Additional field visits were conducted by Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS
and Gregory C. Antemann PWS. Jurisdictional areas were delineated using the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Routine On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987
1 United States Department of Agriculture, 1982. Soil Survey of Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
CHARLOTTE, NC - FORT MILL, SC
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
April 25, 2008
Mr. Steve Lund
Page 2 of 5
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.2 Routine On-Site Data Forms representative of
Wetlands AA - BB and adjacent upland areas are enclosed (DPI - DP2).
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D-
shaped dip net, taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a
channel changes classification) within each on-site stream channel. NCDWQ Stream Classification
Forms, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets, and USACE Approved Jurisdictional
Determination Form representative of Stream A have been enclosed (SCP1 - SCP2). A jurisdictional
delineation report and request for verification for the Kannapolis Bio-Repository was sent to the
USACE on March 14, 2008.
Results
The results of the on-site field investigations conducted by CWS indicate that there is one
jurisdictional stream channel (Stream A) and two jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands AA and BB)
located within the property (Figure 1, enclosed). Additional on-site features include two non-
jurisdictional storm drainage basins located in the adjacent upland areas. Jurisdictional waters include
an unnamed tributary to Cold Water Creek within the Yadkin River basin (HU# 03040105). Cold
Water Creek is rated "Class C waters" by the NCDWQ. On-Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were
mapped using a sub-metered GPS unit and total 0.06 acres (2,614 square feet). Linear footage and
acreage of on-site jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1.
Perennial Streams
Stream A flows southwest through the center of the properly and is approximately 398 linear feet in
length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited average ordinary
high water widths of 2-5 feet, moderate flow, and substrate consisting of coarse sand to small gravel.
Biological sampling within Perennial Stream A resulted in a weak presence filamentous algae and a
strong presence of iron oxidizing bacteria. The stream originates at the outfall of an existing culvert
under Chipola Road. The upper portion of Perennial Stream A is highly degraded from past grading
activities and lacks riparian buffer. Portions of this section of channel are deep and narrow and
exhibit little to no habitat with strong evidence of nutrient discharge. Due to the evidence of typical
year-round flow, Perennial Stream A was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW) according
to USACE/EPA guidance (AJDF1, Stream A). USACE Stream Quality Assessment Scores for
Perennial Stream A ranged from 38 to 50 points out of a possible 100 points and ranged from 32 to
33.5 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status
(SCP1 - SCP2). On the USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map, Perennial Stream A is indicated as an
intermittent blue line. This stream does not appear on USDA-NRCS soils maps. Photographs of
Perennial Stream A are enclosed as Photographs A - B.
Wetlands
Wetland AA (approximately 0.01 acre) and Wetland BB (approximately 0.02 acre) are located in the
central portion of the property (Figure 1, enclosed). These herbaceous wetland areas are
hydrologically connected to Perennial Stream A. Dominant vegetation within these areas.includes tag
alder (Alnus serrulata), river cane (Arundinaria gigantea), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus),
strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), soft stem rush (Juncus effusus), seedbox
(Ludwigia alternifolia), and various grasses (Festuca sp.). Wetland AA and Wetland BB exhibited
z Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
3 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974.
April 25, 2008
Mr. Steve Lund
Page 3 of 5
low chroma soils (IOYR 4/2), many distinct mottles (5YR 4/4), water marks, drainage patterns,
inundation to 3 inches, oxidized root channels within the upper 12 inches, and saturation within the
upper 12 inches of the soil profile. A Routine On-Site Determination Form representative of Wetland
AA and Wetland BB is enclosed (DP2). Photographs of Wetland AA and Wetland BB are enclosed as
Photographs C - D.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on April 4, 2008 to determine
the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be
affected by the project. As of the date of this submittal, a response letter from SHPO has not yet been
received. The project is located in a commercial area with adjacent residential and institutional lots;
the occurrence of any area of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance is unlikely.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNIIP) to determine the
presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located
within the project area. A response letter was received from the Program dated April 3, 2008 stating
that the Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities,
significant natural heritage areas or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within one mile of the
project area. On site investigations did not reveal suitable habitat for any listed species.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project is to provide a new bio-repository facility for use by the North Carolina
Research Campus (NCRC) for the frozen storage of research specimens on property which is owned
by the applicant. The tenants initial need projections and growth for the next 10 years with
facilitation of warehouse workflow activities has determined that the size of the facility must be at
least 40,000 square feet. The facility needs to be located on a portion of the site which is adjacent to a
main thoroughfare and visible from the street. Vehicular access, loading and parking areas need to be
situated with direct road access but are not allowed to access Canon Boulevard directly. A supporting
facility (blood bank proposed) also of approximately 40,000 square feet of floor area and associated
parking is required adjacent to the biorepository to complement the services to be provided to the
NCRC. Existing topographic grades dictate that any access drive and parking be constructed on
significant fill to bring the grade of the site up to existing road grade levels.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Impacts to on-site jurisdictional stream channels have been reduced to less than 300
linear feet. The location on site was chosen to maximize the potential of the site while minimizing
stream impacts. The portion of the stream and wetland which will be impacted has already been
significantly impaired and degraded by previous urban and land disturbing activities. The
downstream portion of the stream begins to exhibit a natural character and has been avoided and will
be enhanced and buffered. The downstream end of the cuvert extension will utilize a vertical
headwall to minimize the length of stream impacted. The back wall of the building will incorporate
vertical retaining wall foundations so that the maximum distance from undisturbed stream will be
maintained. All stormwater runoff from impervious areas will be directed into a stormwater BMP to
remove 85% Total Suspended Solids from the first inch of rainfall.
April 25, 2008
Mr. Steve Lund
Page 4 of 5
Alternatives Analysis
An alternatives analysis was conducted to review to avoid and minimize stream and wetland impacts
while achieving the project purpose and need
Alternative 1 - No Build Alternative
This alternative would result in no stream or wetland impacts but would not achieve the project
purpose and need.
Alternative 2 - Construct facility as originally designed
This alternative provided 37 additional parking spaces for the bioretention facility but resulted in an
increased amount of stream and wetland impact. A total of 290 linear feet of stream and .03 acre of
wetland would be impacted by the project. Less stream would remain for mitigation purposes.
Alternative 3 - Reduce the size of the facility
This alternative would avoid and minimize the extent of stream and wetland impacts but would not
achieve the project purpose and need for a 40,000 square foot bioretention facility and a 40,000 square
foot support facility with associated road access, delivery and parking.
Alternative 4 - Reduce culvert length.
This alternative would reduce the culvert length to less than 150 linear feet. This alternative would
satisfy the project purpose and need but was not feasible to construct due to topographic limitations
and the state requirement for a 50' rip rap apron for energy dissipation. Also, the loading dock would
need to be located too close to parking, reducing room for delivery vehicle turning radius and not
allow room for a dumpster pad.
Alternative 5 - Preferred alternative - Selected Site Plan
This alternative will satisfy the project purpose and need, eliminate 37 parking spaces from the
original plan by sharing space with the support facility, and will reduce stream and wetland impacts to
274 linear feet of stream and .022 acre of wetland.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts to Perennial Stream A total 274 linear feet will result from the extension of an
existing culvert and fill to provide access roadway construction, parking, loading dock facilities and
required rip rap apron. These impacts are the result of approximately 224 linear feet of culvert
extension and a 50-foot linear foot rip rap apron at the outfall of the proposed culvert. The proposed
culvert is a 60" reinforced concrete pipe with headwalls and two anti-seep collars. The downstream
end of the culvert will be buried 1 foot (Figure 2, enclosed). A profile and cross section design of the
proposed crossing have been enclosed as Figures. On behalf of DHM Holding Company, CWS is
submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application with attachments in accordance with
Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 39, (enclosed).
Compensatory Mitigation
Construction of this project will impact approximately 274 linear feet of degraded and impaired urban
perennial stream which exhibited USACE Stream Quality Assessment scores of less than 50, filling of
approximately 72 square feet (.002 acre) of Wetland AA and filling of approximately .02 acre of
Wetland BB. Mitigation proposed for this project will consist of avoidance of approximately .008
acre of Wetland AA, avoidance of impacts to approximately 124 linear feet of Stream A and
enhancement of approximately undisturbed length of stream A by stream bank stabilization and buffer
replanting with native woody species.
April 25, 2008
Mr. Steve Lund
Page 5 of 5
Please do not hesitate to contact Craig R. Wyant at 704-527-1177 or [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding this submittal.
C__-'j 0?2 4='? ZT_?_ C. ;??
Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS Gregory C. Antemann, PWS
Vice President of Natural Resources President
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Concord, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Cabarrus County Soil Survey
Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Representative Photographs (A - F)
Agency Correspondence
Agent Certification Authorization Form
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 39
Proposed Alternatives and Preferred Alternative Site Plan
Culvert Profile and Cross Section
Stormwater Management Plan
Copy of Jurisdictional Determination Report
I
Kaonapolis Bio-Repository
Nationwide Permit No 39 Proiect lyo. 2®07-2097
Ii. itw
? ar ? e '• P ?PWI ?? B?`''?s:K
WestA dltraet/'1 - -?( ?I ?j `1 r J
? w -rr -- ? ,! t• ' ?,? "? ' f°--- - J Cr ter ?• ? K. I f.? ! : 1;
FDA.
Z ,
ry/ t`.' ° • W .: r „ 1 a F - Yl . ? ?F _ '{f4 r'- ..
411,
?•?. ? 9 ?.-r7+J?r,-, ??4 r/- 'r./nMdT-`..ar.a:SN?', _};-; ?I ???.. ? ,? .?. + ?J,}
0 4 4?10' µ` .,£• ??, ?I?_•->`..
T`)
NI.
' • X91-e?.t,J
?' ?" ""•" ?,*? 9 t I.fS ,?.. t ? ... ? ? ? ?( ``?a`" 8av f ril' -v., :., G <.4 t' ^ ? n
!v
st 'djr•
+r ?.. + ` fr'3 .,4/,/ 4..? r h'4" a? ? ;.r d.. r ? l;h,..... ? y - J?_ , ? _? ? w e' - ? ?+ • rr :Y
., b 110 (
" h' i FT's, t t L .?• '.? { fi N...
s
i dlr4 rp'r f? a tLt r Y `?- ` -. C a ?: '• tk /i J r
,'1 • ^il ,`u / 6 I/ iay Hacli lg A & 1. k? ?_ PI ' qtr - r. .i?= r r' 1 +.?r
v j i.?,, " N ? 4 °a? ? ., a '? ,i? ., ? ? 1 .??? 'h? +' vly? c; f. r? r 1. ?'
y,v .M r
•. 1 Q'
k w. ?J7J Y? 4'f'1•KTVI[+'p/ f-' ?a'?5?.. A! F as ? Mff aF ( .?g
`? ??. '?I ea,aa# ?* [ `tub 4? - 1 r • ?c.,J
il' k ;f ! •r a?. I ?t ,{„f?°..'s'rd-;'zr-may`,.
r? , ? ?. ?? ?e y ? - I _ _ H1?4ia ti. Ssk7?Ea? 1 si "tr?e? , ? ? ? i ? • r
,
rwrY " J +r, ?yf+Ar rr>? l?k.. f -," -•E J.tv:..
. 1660
,?j[v t 5? a
i '`a t y?f16:
F AJ Drtvt in
p u 1 t q, `
r;?' q ,r St:= v t?V n 'TheOter C4lt.eard
f h,
1 1 t ? ? d 4- ?. ?N
Go
Jr , f err •t i -. p,? ; - L";?L <t,j f. ? '. ,?'1•
.µ j..
Imago Courtesy of the U.S• cGoolognoall Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Concord, North Carolina, dated 1991.
Approximate Scale P = 2000'
K,gnnapoHs io-Repository
Jurisdictiogat Delineatien Re ort and ReQuest for Verification- Pro?ect No. 2007-2097
---------------
N d ?yJ
1 1r t \\
a
)2 \ IdR
`.`Po?,,,i?
SoU Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS
?I
NRCS Soil Survey of Cabanas County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 2, dated 1982.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
r?
04rlj I
,t

o
a? N
i ,.
------- - ------
, r
Q
Lo
'?? ? 111
d '
i
L
\ - 0

NoNNbo
o
0
_.i
U`.
I'ot rN o
/ oc w.
W P..
®®C4
O ® -y el Q:
10 Q "y
® v m
-- - 3,f 5
i
t
o?
c
o

o

"? U) 0

o c?
c
Cu M
0
o o U o

(TJ
O
0
(3)

Kannapolis Bio-Repository
Jurisdictional Delineation Report and Request for Verification Project No. 2007-2097
Photograph A. View of Perennial Stream A, facing downstream from Chipola Road.
Photograph B. View of Perennial Stream A, facing downstream.
Kannapolis Rio-Repository
Jurisdictional Delineation Report and Request for Verification Project No. 2007-2097
Photograph C. View of Wetland AA, facing south.
Photograph D. View of Wetland BB adjacent to Stream A, facing upstream.
Kannapolis Bio-Repository
Jurisdictional Delineation Report and Request for Verification Proiect No. 2007-2097
North Carolina
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
NCDENR
Department of Environment and
April 3, 2008
Mr. Paul A. Bright
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: Kannapolis Bio-Repository Permit - Proposed Construction of a New Bio-repository Facility;
Kannapolis, Cabarrus County
CWS Project No. 2007-2097
Dear Mr. Bright:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area.
Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not
necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural
areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our
Program also has a new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location:
<http://nlhpweb,enr.state.ne.us/iihis/public/gmap75-main.phtml>. The user name is "public" and the
password is "heritage". You may want to click "Help" for more information.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. This service provides site
specific information on GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural. Heritage Areas. The NC OneMap website provides Element Occurrence (EO) ID
iiuthhbers (nlsLead ,)l specle?, name), and tie daia llser is then encourageQ to contact the Nautrai Heritage
Program for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
NHP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by
NHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit <www°.nconemap.com>, then click
on "FTP Data Download", and then "nheo.zip" [to the right of "Natural Heritage Element Occurrences"]
You may also e-mail NC OneMap at <dataq(u_),ncmail.nct> for more information.
Please do not hesitate'to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
I f
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
"Pj31 malls r tVg v ' oFr ll?l h, North Carolina 27699-1601 one
Carolina
Phone: `?19-733 499,4 FAX: [phone] \ Internet: w.p-nr ?tate,rtc.LisiF=C?RO ' ;;5 . lr vf11 :V 1 A,,'f4(r 4tV r rt Jn Ernp;I"s f FO % k1ccy lerl ' 10 ! . OFI Cr l%Af:ic.r r'a.C:t?I - 6
AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Lynne Safrit, representing DHN4 Holding Company, hereby certify that I have
authorized Craig R. Wyant of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my behalf and
take a.11 actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request for
wetlands determination/permitting and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
4- 16.
plicant's. < VP ure r'
3 113 J
Date
Agent's signature
02/25/08
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USAGE Action ID No. DWQ No. .08 0 750
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I< Processing
;t P A V
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit No. 39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II, Applicant Information
kC611R_9 p
Owner/Applicant Information APR 2 9 2008
Name: DHM Holding Company Ms Lynne Safrit ---?jEran r- - U .[I Mailing Address: 226 Oak Avenue Kannapolis NC 28081 WEnMSMDjj;5RMW_ATER
Telephone Number: 704-938-5400 Fax Number:
E-mail Address: c/o SLanigangeastlecooke.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS
Company Affiliation: Carolina Wetland Services Inc.
Mailing Address: 550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte NC 28273
Telephone Number: 704-527-1177 Fax Number: 704-527-1133
E-mail Address: craia a ews-inc.net
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USAGE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Kannapolis Biorepository
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 081-114-53
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Charlotte, travel on
Interstate 77 (I-77) to Interstate 277 (I-277) via Exit 9 and merge onto 1-277 N via Exit 9B.
Travel approximately 1.6 miles and take the Third Street exit Exit 2A. Travel approximately
0.5 mile and turn right onto E 3`d Street Travel approximately 0.1 mile and turn left onto S.
Kings Drive Travel approximately 0.4 mile and S Kings Drive becomes Central Avenue.
Travel approximately 0.4 mile on Central Avenue and turn left onto Louise Avenue. Travel
approximately 0.2 mile and turn left onto Otts Street. The site will be at 1100 Otts Street.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): N35.49384 ON W80.60993 °W
6. Property size (acres): 6.08 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Cold Water Creek
8. River Basin: Yadkin (14U# 03040105)
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/adminJmaps/.)
Page 2 of 9
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The current land use for the project area is comprised of
industrial commercial residential and institutional uses The site is presently undeveloped
and has been mostly cleared and mass graded by previous owners.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
purpose of this project is to construct a new 40,000 sf biorepository facility, 40,000 sf
support facility, attendant parking access and loading dock facilit ie?ypical construction
equipment will be used including, grader, bulldozer, truck trackhoe and typical excavation
equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of this project is to provide a new bio-
repository facility for use by the North Carolina Research Campus (NCRC) for the frozen storage of
research specimens on property which is owned by the applicant. The tenants initial need projections
and growth for the next 10 years with facilitation of warehouse workflow activities has determined
that the size of the facility must be at least 40,000 square feet. The facility needs to be located on a
portion of the site which is adjacent to a main thoroughfare and visible from the street. Vehicular
access, loading and parking areas need to be situated with direct road access but are not allowed to
access Canon Boulevard directly. A supporting facility (blood bank proposed) also of approximately
40,000 square feet of floor area and associated parking is required adjacent to the biorepository to
complement the services to be provided to the NCRC. Existing topographic grades dictate that any
access drive and parking be constructed on significant fill to bring the grade of the site up to existing
road grade levels.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCD®T project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. There is no prior project history for this site.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are currently no future project plans for this site
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
Page 3 of 9
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Unavoidable impacts to Perennial
Stream A total approximately 274 linear feet and are the result of roadway construction to
allow for access to the site parking and loading dock facilities. These impacts are the result
of approximately 224 linear feet of culvert placement and a 50-foot linear foot rip rap apron
at the outfall of the proposed culvert. A profile and cross section design of the proposed
crossing have been enclosed as Figures 3 - 4.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
cennrntely liet imnnrtc dine to hotlh ctrnrtrnre and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within
100-year Distance to
Nearest Area of
Impact
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, Floodplain Stream (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) ( es/no) (linear feet)
1 fill herbaceous no 0' .02
2 fill herbaceous no 0' .002
Total Wetland Impact (acres) •022
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.03 acre
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
m„et hP inrhideri Tn rnlrrnlnte ncreaae_ multinly length X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Perennial Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact t?
Intermittent Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on ma) . Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
Stream A UT to Cold Water Culvert Placement Perennial 3' 224 if 0.02
Creek
Stream A UT to Cold Water Rip Rap Apron Perennial 3' 501f 0.01
Creek
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 2741f 0.02
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Impact Type of Waterbody Area of
Page 4 of 9
Site Number
(indicate on ma) (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Impact
(acres)
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres) N/A
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.02
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.022
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.00
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.024
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 2741f
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USAGE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., darn/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Expected pond surface area: N/A
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Impacts to on-site jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to on-site jurisdictional
stream channels have been reduced to less than 300 linear feet. The location on site was chosen to
maximize the potential of the site while minimizing stream impacts. The portion of the stream and
wetland which will be impacted has already been significantly impaired and degraded by previous urban
and land disturbing activities The downstream portion of the stream begins to exhibit a natural character
and has been avoided and will be enhanced and buffered. The downstream end of the cuvert extension
will utilize a vertical headwall to minimize the length of stream impacted. The back wall of the building
will incorporate vertical retaining wall foundations so that the maximum distance from undisturbed
Page 5 of 9
stream will be maintained All stormwater runoff from impervious areas will be directed into a
stormwater BMP to remove 85% Total Suspended Solids from the first inch of rainfall. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters.
V111. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USAGE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/newetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Construction of this project will impact approximately 274 linear feet of degraded and impaired
urban perennial stream which exhibited USACE Stream Quality Assessment scores of less than 50,
filling of approximately 72 square feet 002 acre) of Wetland AA and filling of approximately .02
acre of Wetland BB Mitigation proposed for this project will consist of avoidance of approximately
008 acre of Wetland AA avoidance of impacts to approximately 124 linear feet of Stream A and
enhancement of approximately 124 linear feet of stream A by stream bank stabilization and buffer
replanting with native woody species
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
Page 6 of 9
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No ?
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buf
er multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) T Mitigation
Page 7 of 9
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration i
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Enhancement, or Payment into the
appropriate information as identified
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The site will have approximately 65%
impervious area when complete A stormwater management plan is attached.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Public sanitary ewersystem.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Construction of this project will not result in further development that may impact nearby
downstream water quality.
XY. Other Circumstances (Optional)-
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
Page 8 of 9
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Construction is scheduled to begin immediately following receipt of the appropriate permits_

Applicant/Agent's Signatu ire Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
m _ aullo-Js0 y}aoN `spod*@uu'e)l o m
E0 77
` m $
lD?]alS d-lodlHO ®Nd H m
an-1e NoNNdo HiUON ? J
Y E (8) I.uOLISOdou-ols
C\j
,?
- pg;. ._. Z gdu h
ZI/
I i
r I
LL -
`, I I l / /
I
?? I m a ? `J.
i
l rot - I III "
-1117 i rn 17rnH
I ? I I I- - ?? III ? 'll' IF - / I i I I I I I lul- { _ ,
?. r?? I ? _ A p 11 I: Ir 1 ! I r IF?I 1 r , I ? _? ?, I ,
c
_.?\ Iu I -I * aA _I ?, If LLLL1 I LUG' I p°
\ I - _
- II
I ?
I
\? I I m $?j_ 710 -------
- _ , 418 NpNNbJ H1 N f - ?7? / ' / \ \ \ -
-----------------
'? \ ,
o R e UupoaL3O y}aoN `sljodsUUU-A , i u
?m
o tl s i?] lHiS d°IOdIHO (INV o
° i =og 'an-18 NONNVO H1SON o "
(e) Aeoilsod3e-Ole
a 4
m 9 a? g Y
Lli
>
W
•• H
1 Y? Z
jV-
0
\` I oo / ??\ yi ? •
-IT
II-
_?1 X11 T- 1 I- I--1fi rll - i
" I IF _lUJ-
`
-
LLI LU?J I r
I
\ \ s
I \ ? I l.- I--... I ? I l?
2I \\? \
W
I 5 2§$ \ \'
r
\? I o•hc ?` I 710
once No
_ \ NNb3! 1210

"U'10-J'90 L41-ION 'silodleuuB)l C
IL
sndw8o yoasasaU eugoaso 4j
JON
$
O
p?eoU ulodiyo
cli
kaolpodaaoi8 U

.4A
I 111 1 1 ? ? ?\?\ \\ \ \ IIIe? ? ?-- ?! r /
a
11111 ?-
- ------------------------
` \` / I\I \ NL ?1 U
i Nz
- -------------------
I _
All
Y 4 4
a _ A e 8
Leo
Im
ag
? ? X28 ?s
Y
? >x
xy®
4
Son
9,A? gg??
zzg?m off?m

W
7
a
Lo Z
Wcr
H
f. J
as
Z p
(r LU
J LU
Q LL
W
cc
a
? i `14
720-- ?
f 1 710
I-A
(Aft
1 jyovv?sn
/ \
Ao? t euilOJPO glJON `silodBuuB>j l o
?. T ???{ ' sndua"o you,3asaH BugoaEO glJON
SRI
y16 3?0 co r o
n E Fu o$ a x_ as z ?? °y`
b C _ xx Z g ?Fb g .YF.? a k
s $ 3°3 E ? $q95 ?fx § § ;? 4 ° "g"?g9g
?s _ zz ..a x? §?{ $ ao c ,oYS°zS `r-` €egga °= e?€? '6??5§eo€ °F
g a 3"a?3s:.s
E s `-!
E4 3- pR "?°S `a o§ °ya °.? a bog a ae o° 3??Ub-° ?pn ?.? 3 b a Mill,
_1a&? Y cye5 y a„ E?6
€ ER E? b& 'ss asY ; do ?'
b 345 °.
a6~ F ?yr? " E §= x Q
'? ? L a'?yK °? "p T `
i ° tl 4 ? ??33 ?? AAA 5b `s
5" £sdgd H
L
WIN
z5 yo? -i ?` e,? 8?2S?oE be& ?`E C 5
30 ` R 55?$oc'Fj
S ?
a He 2'. IMF p
8A2 W. . ,
R ...
4 w?f ??I z64 l& b t3?3`
H A - %
`
^g4 " s§ - z §?§? ' ads ?rA?,
9
€ ti
II Z
I I V I I I i _ LL >...
. o
L 1 a c To Ft ?/
f I r
II I?? ?,.-i7 ? - - ,-. - - ?r -??•.?\., . 'h 1, ns,-.... ? ?//'R.I I I i i
a?
U
v--
O
O
N
b=
O
0-
Profile View of Alignment m (5)
745
740
735
730
725
72C
71:
710
0+00

I
,w
U
IQ
to
?
01
y
to
I°
I°

ROPOSED FFE

1.50 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

OP OF

M

I
I
I ELEV. 72 .75
I /
I EXI a
TING STREAM O
' cA /
r
BU EACH y
F ER, 20 0
SID OF STREAM rv m /
E
I87
N _
?
` GRA\ I I I /

\ PROPOSED
~ I z
/
,/ BOTTOM OF W
ELEV. 720.00 LL I , w
F

\ 1?
I I
I POND BOTTO
4
` F / ELEV. 718.00
I
` I z
IW
\`? \ x / a
Iw
O
1
IN
/
?O

Z
a
io
NO
,a
Ia

0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
745
'40
735
730
725
720
715
710
3+00
Baoreposatory Site on Chipole Road
BMP Design requirements for Proposed Weft Detention Pond
April 24, 2008
LDI Project No. 1007330
The Chipola Road Site consists of a 6.08 acre property divided into two separate parcels. Parcel
1 will contain the proposed Biorepository Building for the Research Campus and Parcel 2 is
proposed for future development.
The wet detention pond proposed for the site is a stormwater management facility designed to
treat the first 1" of runoff to 85% Total Suspended Solid removal. The pond is designed per 2007
NCDENR BMP Manual. The discharge rate following a 1-inch rainfall shall completely draw down
the permanent pool elevation between 2 and 5 days.
The sizing of the pond accounts for all runoff at ultimate build-out of the property including future
development. The pond is designed based on 65% total impervious area of the site. A 10' wide
vegetated shelf is required around the full perimeter of the pond. The pond contains two forebay
areas both sized a minimum of 20% the total pond size. The northern forebay area is to receive
stormwater runoff from the Biorepository building and the eastern forebay area is constructed for
future development discharge. Once Parcel 1 is completed and the wet detention basin is as-
built, Parcel 2 is expected to be developed with impervious areas per original design calculations
or less.
Wet Detention Pored
Calculations
??

b°a
y
W ?
m
pN
c Q
wo

°o
o°
°o °o
°o o
G N C o Q
? n ? n n ? o a
?1?N O
n
d
.?E E
`3°¢ f0
c .?
m
=
v .
hl??. U
t O C
a m d o m?
a??2 N?
J?OJ 5

r

C6

o b
n
o
Q
m

m
U N
n
N
p o
r U
_ O t
C Ol r _..
JvLi
{L r
.. 3
d SST

O T ^I'
m >

W
OI N
L v c
d O 4-
Cc
2
x
_ m
^
LL
N
L
CO

O C ?¢fn
x
L U

E
m
0

i
0

,? yK .
m m
v

r1vt
r-4 k?
m
^n
^
?? 0
I
.

??N^
0
0
E
d
.c o
v
N LL2
69-

B'E E
`
02
i]<
m
mho
€o
°
0
o
!
O N ° nl
h ? c o
E °. o
Ear
2
g ?.

O
O
LO
N
n
N V
O C+!
to U-)
CV C14
00 nn -5
O C WE C o
CL CC?n
m--oo ajO
-0 CL C? .0 N_
J ?C]JCn Cn
0
O
U
? E
20
m
a
c
0
m
a>
w
O O
M
o
Cl)
n n
=moo
rL N CO
C] r N
cn??n
n
d
N
E
.0 j?
'.. J U)

[h f
C6 Lo
N
UNn
a)
a
t E
-a
CO Ir N

W 1 Q?
O W ?M
CL O ?{? ^ pp c??l
O U N n
$ °- n E
N T- Cc
Yt
f
n

W 0 4t
c
c S
O ?
/
W '4 04 rl-:
?.} N r ce)
U
CL ( I
SEE
Co =3
i r CD

?o
o Ln
Mpoi

o
'6
6
••na
m E
`O, Cr cn
O
04
n O
0
O
d Cl)
r LO
Lri 4
C-4
p n n U
C:>
p T
o
? A _... +
a) C.. ? O
CO i?C NT T
J?CJ J Cn Cn
M CT
04
onn (J
r c
0) (D o
tL>>ooo?
0
S" ai-
CS CM N_
JSo JCn Cn
r O
n Ln
C14 04
n n U
n 4?o
Ll > > O ? lf).
p T
CO NC
m LZCN.N .
J ? CIJ Cn Cn
c :-
J O
N
N
n
M
O
N
Q
3
?U
5
N
C o
o $
U p
d
2
C
E
W
m
m
E
O
0
M
r
0
n?
E iN
60
N y A
F= co
Scenario: 10-yr Event
Gutter Spread
Label Inlet Inlet Bypass Curb Grate Longitudinal Gutter
Dit
h Gutter
Ditch Total
Carryover Total
Bypassed
Location Target Opening
Length Length
(ft) Slope
(%) c
Spread Depth Flow Flow
(ft) (ft) (n) (cfs) (cis)
CB -8 Combination CB In Sag 3.00 2.00 2.03 -0.01 0.00 0.00
CB-7 Combinatlon CB On Grade DI-6 3.00 2.00 3.33 3.25 0.06 0.00 0.01
DI-6 Combination CB In Sag 3.00 2.00 2.05 -0.01 0.01 0.00
SDMH-5 Combination CB In Sag 3.00 2.00 8.64 0.17 0.00 0.00
0
00
CB-3 Combination CB In Sag 3.00 2.00 2.56
40
2 0.03
0
02 0. 10
0.00 .
0.00
CB-2 Combination CB In Sag 3.00 2.00 .
2
31 .
01
0 0.00 0.00
CB-1 Combination CB In Sag 3.00 2.00 . .
Project Engineer: Marc Momsen
Title: South Village StormCAO v5.6 105.06.014.001
n1...biviNst-MNbiorepository (4-22-08).stm Land Design
04122/08 10:30:51 AM 0 Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +t-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
t
a
W ?
a
C5 .O.
r !0
Q
t`6 Y
V O
N ?
U
° ...
O« 2;; m m W V 0 R N m m N ?f V?fJJ O o'
N N N
N N N N N N m N N N N N
.p ?
>,?ry c" N
n n n n r n n n r r r r n r r
x
`?
v
r< o °w
um
i `r
m
e
m
o
rn
m m
m
o
b N 0 Z (?
N.
(
(yy (
N N N? .6
N N N
^
N
N
n
N
m
N
aN
_??'' t
`
r n n n r n n r r r n n n
°
duo
c 1O
o s n n a m a °o

. n n n r n
ll

q'° O N r r N N m `!
j?W
E m N O N m O O
v y l0 N o N N [?
^
?U
o
Q
O
E
m ? N N n o N
m 6J fV M C1 m C)
nU
m in n u? Q o : m n ¢
z
t' Z
? n n n
?
O" n n n
m
m ¢ Q Q ¢¢ ¢ Q Q a
`z zz z z z z z z z
w?
>V
;, z z z zz z z z 'z
w?
c
Q m n m ?°n
¢ `ai
°o
,
,
z ui < vi m
Wr
> v n n n n n n n

m r .°- m °o a m umi rn o
ui N o of of
?+°'?? n n n n n n n
o W
O
E
m d° n n n o ? m n
a ? n m N a ci
ac>?
? W n ? r n n n ?
M m a m n
m o d ci of vi e ro m
Q>
0
OQ? m a O O O
a c4 O
a
f m
¢ ¢ Q ¢ ¢ 2 ¢
O m U L L L
C
C C
N
vN
N _ C
_
m o m m m
m
°o °o r °o °0 0 0
_
,j V m o m .6 6 Cm9 N
N
??pp
IL 6G
U tap ? r N tm° W r
.N- ? ? pl G O O
o
o m m n n a a m m n m m v? u? m
a e m m m m m m m m m m N
LL ??, o 0 0 o m m m ui ui t6 o r n ro m
?? N N N

- A a o m O m o
o m o
J Q LL
p=
O O O O o o
O o O o o o
9 IL ?
D
¢ N
-?? o 0 0 o B o 0
m "?
m ? r n r ^ n n r
m 3 d C N N N ? ? O
o
6.??E O O o o O O

cU °m °m °m °m Si m
o o 0 o c o 0
d y o 0 0 0 ? m
0 0 0 0 0 0
R?
v
o
m ??
F°mE oo o °o °0 0 o o
YI m ?I) N m m ul
0
E
m
.m
N O
Z

o
U U
g O
U O
E
m
? y =
lzo

z
N
n
co
? U U
u U
`9 m?^ m m ' ? m m m N o .-
m m m m m m ? m
m m m
6
U u_UdOaw Uio d.o
E <
° O 0
2°a
n vi
? o
W U
0
d N
a `p
o?
L C
N
m
x
m
0
Z
o.
99`o
mba
m€n
> m
Loo
o .5;
my?
o
F
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Existing Conditions
Sheet Flow
Max. Elevation: 638
Min. Elevation: 635
Flow Length (ft): 100
Slope: 3.00%
Mannings: 0.4
Precipitation: 3.12
Travel Time: 0.31 hr
Shallow Concentrated
Max. Elevation: 635
Min. Elevation: 630
Flow Length (ft): 140
Slope: 3.57%
Velocity (fps): 3.05
Travel Time: 45.91 sec
0.013 hr
Channel/Pipe Flow
Flow Length (ft):
Velocity (fps):
Travel Time:
Time of Concentration:
2-yr, 24-hr rainfall
T=[0.07(n L)0.8/(P2)0.5(S)0.4]
V=16.1345(S)0.5 Unpaved
482
5 assumed 5 ft/sec
96.40 sec
0.03 hr
0.35 hr
20.86 min
N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\Tc Calcs-As 4/9/2008
BIOREPOSITORY WET DETENTION POND
DESIGN: WATER QUALITY TO MEET 85% TSS REMOVAL
GIVEN:
DRAINAGE AREA TO FACILITY = 5.64 Ac.
LAND USE = General Commercial District
ESTIMATED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS = 65%
PREDOMINANT SOIL TYPE = CeD,
1) SA/DA RATIO:
AVERAGE POOL DEPTH =
PERCENT IMPERVIOUS =
SA/DA = 1.77 % _
SA REQUIRED = 5.64
= 0.100
= 4,349
5.5 FEET
65%
0.0177
Ac. X 0.0177
Ac.
SF
2) TEMPORARY WATER QUALITY POOL REQUIREMENTS
PROVIDE VOLUME TO DETAIN THE 1" STORM EVENT ABOVE THE ELEVATION
ALLOCATED AS A PERMANENT POOL
THE VOLUME FOR THE 1" STORM EVENT CAN BE CALCULATED AS:
Vi = (Design Rainfall) (Rv)(Drainage Area)
Design Rainfall = 1 Inch
Drainage Area = 5.64 Acres
Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(1)
1= Percent Impervious = 65%
Rv = 0.64 in./in.
V, =
0.301 acre-feet = 13,112 ft'
4/23/2008 7:16 AM Page 1 of 2
3) 4 DAY RELEASE OF TEMPORARY WATER QUALITY POOL
Required Q = (Vi)/(345,600 seconds) = 0.08 cfs
Height Above Orifice (H) = 0.6 feet
Total Orifice Area Required = 0.017 sf
Average Q = 0.08 cfs
Number of Orifices = 1
Orifice Diameter = 1.74 inches : use 2 Inches
H Q
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.02
0.10 0.03
0.15 0.03
0.20 0.04
0.25 0.04
0.30 0.04
0.35 0.05
0.40 0.05
0.45 0.05
0.50 0.06
0.55 0.06
0.60 0.06
0.65 0.06
0.70 0.07
0.75 0.07
0.80 0.07
0.85 0.07
0.90 0.08
0.95 0.08
1.00 0.08
1.05 0.08
1.10 0.08
1.15 0.09
1.20 0.09
1.25 0.09
1.30 0.09
1.35 0.09
1.40 0.09
1.45 0.10
1.50 0.10
1.55 0.10
1.60 0.10
1.65 0.10
1.70 0.10
1.75 0.11
Q= ((2x32.2xH)^°'5)x0.6xA
695.6
4/23/2008 7:16 AM Page 2 of 2
Type.... Master Network Summary Page 1.01
Name.... Watershed
File.... N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\project7330REV.ppw
MASTER DESIGN STORM SUMMARY
Network Storm Collection: Mecklenburg
Total
Depth Rainfall
Return Event in Type
------- RNF ID
----------------
------------
2 ------
2.2800 ---------
Time-Depth Curve 2yr 6hr
10 3.7200 Time-Depth Curve 10yr 6hr
50 4.9200 Time-Depth Curve 50yr 6hr
1 2.5800 Synthetic Curve TypeII 24hr
MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY
SCS Unit Hydrograph Method
(*Node=Outfall; +Node=Diversion;)
(Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank=None; L=Left; R=Rt; LR=Left&Rt)
Return HYG Vol
Node ID Type Event
---- ac-ft Trun
----------
----------
EXISTING ------ - ----
AREA --
2 .326
EXISTING AREA 10 .817
EXISTING AREA 50 1.284
EXISTING AREA 1 .419
*EXISTING OUT JCT 2 .326
*EXISTING OUT JCT 10 .817
*EXISTING OUT JCT 50 1.284
*EXISTING OUT JCT 1 .419
*OUT 10 JCT 2 .657
*OUT 10 JCT 10 1.285
*OUT 10 JCT 50 1.827
*OUT 10 JCT 1 .785
Max
Qpeak Qpeak Max WSEL Pond Storage
hrs cfs ft ac-ft
---- -------- ------------
---------
3.2500 ----
4.99
3.2500 12.61
3.2500 19.10
12.1000 4.99
3.2500 4.99
3.2500 12.61
3.2500 19.10
12.1000 4.99
3.3000 4.31
3.2500 10.41
3.1500 25.18
12.1000 4.67
SIN: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 6:10 PM 4/22/2008
Type.... Master Network Summary Page 1.02
Name.... Watershed
File.... N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\project7330REV.ppw
MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY
SCS Unit Hydrograph Method
(*Node=Outfall; +Node=Diversion;)
(Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank=None; L=Left; R=Rt; LR=Left&Rt)
Max
Return HYG Vol Qpeak Qpeak Max WSEL Pond Storage
Node ID Type Event ac-ft Trun
----- -- hrs
--------- cfs
-------- ft
-------- ac-ft
------------
----------
PROPOSED ------- ----
AREA ------
2 -----
.663 3.0500 19.20
PROPOSED AREA 10 1.291 3.0500 32.10
PROPOSED AREA 50 1.832 3.0500 37.73
PROPOSED AREA 1 .790 11.9000 14.25
PROPOSED PONDIN POND 2 .663 3.0500 19.20
PROPOSED PONDIN POND 10 1.291 3.0500 32.10
PROPOSED PONDIN POND 50 1.832 3.0500 37.73
PROPOSED PONDIN POND 1 .790 11.9000 14.25
PROPOSED PONDOUT POND 2 .657 3.3000 4.31 724.99 .813
PROPOSED PONDOUT POND 10 1.285 3.2500 10.41 725.88 1.067
PROPOSED PONDOUT POND 50 1.827 3.1500 25.18 726.27 1.188
PROPOSED PONDOUT POND 1 .785 12.1000 4.67 725.03 .822
SIN: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 6:10 PM 4/22/2008
Type.... Design Storms Page 2.01
Name.... Mecklenburg
File.... N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\project7330REV.ppw
Title... Project Date: 4/9/2008
Project Engineer: scotto
Project Title: Bio-Repository
Project Comments:
Wet Detention Pond
DESIGN STORMS SUMMARY
Design Storm File,ID = Mecklenburg
Storm Tag Name = 2
Data Type, File, ID = Time-Depth Curve 2yr 6hr
Storm Frequency = 2 yr
Total Rainfall Depth= 2.2800 in
Duration Multiplier = 1
Resulting Duration = 5.9833 hrs
Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step= .0167 hrs End= 5.9833 hrs
Storm Tag Name = 10
Data Type, File, ID = Time-Depth Curve 10yr 6hr
Storm Frequency = 10 yr
Total Rainfall Depth= 3.7200 in
Duration Multiplier = 1
Resulting Duration = 5.9833 hrs
Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step= .0167 hrs End= 5.9833 hrs
Storm Tag Name = 50
Data Type, File, ID = Time-Depth Curve 50yr 6hr
Storm Frequency = 50 yr
Total Rainfall Depth= 4.9200 in
Duration Multiplier = 1
Resulting Duration = 6.0000 hrs
Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step= .0833 hrs End= 6.0000 hrs
Storm Tag Name = 1
Data Type, File, ID = Synthetic Storm
Storm Frequency = 1 yr
Total Rainfall Depth= 2.5800 in
Duration Multiplier = 1
Resulting Duration = 24.0000 hrs
Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step=
-----------------------------
TypeII 24hr
1000 hrs End= 24.0000 hrs
SIN: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 6:10 PM 4/22/2008
Type.... Vol: Elev-Area
Name.... PROPOSED POND
Page 5.01
File.... N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\project7330REV.ppw
Elevation Planimeter Area Al+A2+sgr(Al*A2) Volume Volume Sum
(ft)
---
------- (sq.in) (acres)
---------------------- (acres)
----------------- (ac-ft)
--------- (ac-ft)
-------------
-
718.00 ----- .0207 .0000 .000 .000
719.00 ----- .0396 .0890 .030 .030
720.00 ----- .0607 .1494 .050 .079
721.00 ----- .0841 .2164 .072 .152
722.00 ----- .1104 .2909 .097 .249
723.00 ----- .1370 .3704 .123 .372
724.00 ----- .2397 .5580 .186 .558
725.00 ----- .2726 .7679 .256 .814
726.00 ----- .3067 .8683 .289 1.103
727.00 ----- .3408 .9707 .324 1.427
POND VOLUME EQUATIONS
* Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes.
Volume = (1/3) * (EL2-ELl) * (Areal + Area2 + sq.rt.(Areal*Area2))
where: ELI, EL2 = Lower and upper elevations of the increment
Areal,Area2 = Areas computed for ELI, EL2, respectively
Volume = Incremental volume between ELI and EL2
SIN: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 6:10 PM 4/22/2008
Type.... Outlet Input Data
Name.... Outlet 2
Page 6.01
File.... N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\project7330REV.ppw
REQUESTED POND WS ELEVATIONS:
Min. Elev.= 718.00 ft
Increment = .50 ft
Max. Elev.= 727.00 ft
OUTLET CONNECTIVITY
---> Forward Flow Only (UpStream to DnStream)
<--- Reverse Flow Only (DnStream to UpStream)
<---> Forward and Reverse Both Allowed
Structure No.
-- Outfall
------- E1, ft
--------- E2, ft
---------
-----------------
Weir-Rectangular --
WO ---> CO 724.500 727.000
Inlet Box RO ---> CO 725.500 730.000
Orifice-Circular 01 ---> CO 723.500 727.000
Culvert-Circular CO ---> TW 718.000 727.000
Weir-Rectangular W1 ---> TW 726.000 727.000
TW SETUP, DS Channel
S/N: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 6:10 PM 4/22/2008
Type.... Outlet Input Data
Name.... Outlet 2
Page 6.02
File.... N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\project7330REV.ppw
OUTLET STRUCTURE INPUT DATA
Structure ID
Structure Type
--------------
# of Openings
Crest Elev.
Weir Length
Weir Coeff.
WO
Weir-Rectangular
----------------
1
724.50 ft
4.00 ft
3.000000
Weir TW effects (Use adjustment equation)
Structure ID = RO
Structure Type =
---- Inlet Box
-----------------
---------------
# of Openings = 1
Invert Elev. = 725.50 ft
Orifice Area = 3.0800 sq.ft
Orifice Coeff. _ .600
Weir Length = 11.50 ft
Weir Coeff. = 3.000
K, Reverse = 1.000
Mannings n = .0000
Kev,Charged Riser = .000
Weir Submergence = No
Structure ID = 01
Structure Type = Orifice-Circular
------------------------------------
# of Openings = 1
Invert Elev. = 723.50 ft
Diameter = .1600 ft
Orifice Coeff. _ .600
SIN: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 6:10 PM 4/22/2008
Type.... Outlet Input Data
Name.... Outlet 2
Page 6.03
File.... N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\project7330REV.ppw
OUTLET STRUCTURE INPUT DATA
Structure ID = CO
Structure Type
---- = Culvert-Circular
------------------
--------------
No. Barrels = 1
Barrel Diameter = 1.0000 ft
Upstream Invert = 718.00 ft
Dnstream Invert = 717.60 ft
Horiz. Length = 36.00 ft
Barrel Length = 36.00 ft
Barrel Slope = .01111 ft/ft
OUTLET CONTROL DATA...
Mannings n = .0130
Ke = .5000
Kb = .031274
Kr = .5000
HW Convergence = .001
(forward entrance loss)
(per ft of full flow)
(reverse entrance loss)
+/- ft
INLET CONTROL DATA...
Equation form = 1
Inlet Control K = .0098
Inlet Control M = 2.0000
Inlet Control c = .03980
Inlet Control Y = .6700
T1 ratio (HW/D) _ .000
T2 ratio (HW/D) = 1.301
Slope Factor = -.500
Use unsubmerged inlet control Form 1 equ. below T1 elev.
Use submerged inlet control Form 1 equ. above T2 elev.
In transition zone between unsubmerged and submerged inlet control,
interpolate between flows at T1 & T2...
At T1 Elev = 718.00 ft ---> Flow = 2.75 cfs
At T2 Elev = 719.30 ft ---> Flow = 3.14 cfs
SIN: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 6:10 PM 4/22/2008
Type.... Outlet Input Data
Name.... Outlet 2
Page 6.04
File.... N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\project7330REV.ppw
OUTLET STRUCTURE INPUT DATA
Structure ID
Structure Type
--------------
# of Openings
Crest Elev.
Weir Length
Weir Coeff.
Weir TW effects
= W1
= Weir-Rectangular
---------------------
= 1
726.00 ft
25.00 ft
3.000000
(Use adjustment equation)
Structure ID = TW
Structure Type = TW SETUP, DS Channel
------------------------------------
FREE OUTFALL CONDITIONS SPECIFIED
CONVERGENCE TOLERANCES...
Maximum Iterations= 40
Min. TW tolerance = .01 ft
Max. TW tolerance = .01 ft
Min. HW tolerance = .01 ft
Max. HW tolerance = .01 ft
Min. Q tolerance = .00 cfs
Max. Q tolerance = .00 cfs
SIN: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 6:10 PM 4/22/2008
Type.... Pond E-V-Q Table
Name.... PROPOSED POND
Page 7.01
File.... N:\ 2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\project733OREV.ppw
LEVEL POOL ROUTING DATA
HYG Dir = N:\_2007\1007330\Docs\Calcs\PondPac\
Inflow HYG file = NONE STORED - PROPOSED PONDIN 2
Outflow HYG file = NONE STORED - PROPOSED PONDOUT 2
Pond Node Data = PROPOSED POND
Pond Volume Data = PROPOSED POND
Pond Outlet Data = Outlet 2
No Infiltration
INITIAL CONDITIONS
Starting WS Elev = 723.50 ft
Starting Volume = .452 ac-ft
Starting Outflow = .00 cfs
Starting Infiltr. _ .00 c£s
Starting Total Qout= .00 cfs
Time Increment = .0500 hrs
Elevation Outflow
ft cfs
718.00 .00
718.50 .00
719.00 .00
719.50 .00
720.00 .00
720.50 .00
721.00 .00
721.50 .00
722.00 .00
722.50 .00
723.00 .00
723.50 .00
724.00 .06
724.50 .09
725.00 4.36
725.50 9.87
726.00 10.58
726.50 37.45
727.00 86.27
Storage Area Infilt. Q Total 2S/t + O
ac-ft acres cfs cfs
-------- cfs
----------
---------
.000 -----------
.0207 -----------
.00 ----
.00 .00
.012 .0294 .00 .00 6.03
.030 .0396 .00 .00 14.35
.052 .0496 .00 .00 25.13
.079 .0607 .00 .00 38.46
.113 .0720 .00 .00 54.49
.152 .0841 .00 .00 73.36
.197 .0968 .00 .00 95.24
.249 .1104 .00 .00 120.30
.307 .1234 .00 .00 148.57
.372 .1370 .00 .00 180.06
.452 .1848 .00 .00 218.86
.558 .2397 .00 .06 270.15
.682 .2559 .00 .09 330.14
.814 .2726 .00 4.36 398.34
.954 .2894 .00 9.87 471.84
1.103 .3067 .00 10.58 544.65
1.261 .3235 .00 37.45 647.76
1.427 .3408 .00 86.27 776.95
SIN: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 6:10 PM 4/22/2008
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Kannapolis Bio-Repository
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: Atlantic American Properties, LLC; Mr. Scott Lanigan
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc; Mr. Craig R. Wyant
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): None
5. Site Address: N. Cannon Blvd. and Chipola Rd., Kannapolis, NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Kannapolis
8. County: Cabarrus
9. Lat: N35.49384° Long: W80.60993° (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Concord North Carolina dated 1991
11. Waterway: UT to Cold Water Creek
12. Watershed: Yadkin (HU # 03040105)
13. Requested Action:
Nationwide Permit #
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM
Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
1 ) Cws
Carolina Wetland Services
February 11, 2008
Mr. Steve Lund
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866-527-1177 (office)
704527-1133 (fax)
Subject: Jurisdictional Delineation Report and Request for Verification
Kannapolis Bio-Repository
Kannapolis, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2007-2097
Dear Mr. Lund:
On behalf of Atlantic American Properties, LLC, Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) is requesting
written verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the extent of jurisdictional
features on the subject property. The Kannapolis Bio-Repository is located in Kannapolis, North
Carolina, in the southeast corner of the North Cannon Boulevard - Chipola Road intersection (see
location map, enclosed). Atlantic American Properties, LLC has contracted CWS to provide a
jurisdictional delineation report and request for verification on this property.
Applicant Name: Atlantic American Properties, LLC; Mr. Scott Lanigan
Mailing Address: 226 Oak Avenue, Kannapolis, NC 28081
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-938-5400
Street Address of Project: N. Cannon Blvd. and Chipola Rd., Kannapolis, NC
Waterway: UT to Cold Water Creek
Basin: Yadkin (HU# 03040105)
City: Kannapolis
County: Cabarrus
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.49384°, W80.60993°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Concord, North Carolina, dated 1991
Methods
On February 7, 2008, CWS's Matt Jenkins, WPIT and Paul Bright delineated jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. within the project area. Jurisdictional areas were delineated using the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Routine On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual! Routine On-Site Data Forms representative of
Wetlands AA - BB and adjacent upland areas are enclosed (DP 1- DP2).
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D-shaped dip
net, taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel changes
classification) within each on-site stream channel. NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms, USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets, and USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
representative of Stream A have been enclosed (SCPl - SCP2).
` Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
NORTH CAROLINA ° SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
February 11 2008
Mr. Steve Lund
Page 2 of 3
Results
The results of the on-site field investigations conducted by CWS indicate that there is one jurisdictional
stream channel (Streams A) and two jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands AA and BB) located within
the property (Figure 1, enclosed). Additional on-site features include two non jurisdictional storm
drainage basins located in the adjacent upland areas. Jurisdictional waters include an unnamed
tributary to Cold Water Creek. Cold Water Creek is within the Yadkin River basin (HU# 03040105)
and is rated "Class C waters" by the NCDWQ. On-Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were mapped
using a sub-metered GPS unit and total 0.06 acres (2,614 square feet). Linear footage and acreage of
on-site jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of On-Site Jurisdictional Waters
Potential Approximate .Lengr h ; Approximate
'Jurisdiction > Classification' Of)i Acreage JD
Stream A Perennial 398 0.03 RPW
Channel Subtotal: 398 0.03
Wetland AA Herbaceous 0.01 Abutting RPW
Wetland BB Herbaceous 0.02 Abutting RPW
Wetland Subtotal: 0.03
On-Site Total: 398 0.06
Perennial Streams
Stream A flows southwest through the center of the property and is approximately 398 linear feet in
length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited average ordinary
high water widths of 2-5 feet, moderate flow, and substrate consisting of coarse sand to small gravel.
Biological sampling within Perennial Stream A resulted in a weak presence filamentous algae and a
strong presence of iron oxidizing bacteria. The upper portion of Perennial Stream A is highly degraded
from past grading activities and lacks riparian buffer. Portions of this section of channel are deep and .
narrow and exhibit little to no habitat with strong evidence of nutrient discharge. Due to the evidence
of typical year-round flow, Perennial Stream A was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW)
according to USACE/EPA guidance (AJDF1, Stream A). USACE Stream Quality Assessment Scores
for Perennial Stream A ranged from 38 to 50 points out of a possible 100 points and ranged from 32 to
33.5 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status
(SCP 1- SCP2). On the USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map, Perennial Stream A is indicated as a
blue line. Photographs of Perennial Stream A are enclosed as Photographs A - B.
Wetlands
Wetland AA (approximately 0.01 acre) and Wetland BB (approximately 0.02 acre) are located in the
central portion of the property (Figure 1, enclosed). These herbaceous wetland areas are hydrologically
connected to Perennial Stream A. Dominant vegetation within these areas includes tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), river cane (Arundinaria gigantea), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus),
strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), soft stem rush (Juncus effusus), seedbox
(Ludwigia alternifolia), and various grasses (Festuca sp.). Wetland AA and Wetland BB exhibited low
chroma soils (1 OYR 4/2), many distinct mottles (5YR 4/4), water marks, drainage patterns, inundation
to 3 inches, oxidized root channels within the upper 12 inches, and saturation within the upper 12
inches of the soil profile. A Routine On-Site Determination Form representative of Wetland AA and
2 , U#,, is the Hydrologic Unit Code. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974.
February 1 12008
Mr. Steve Lund
Page 3 of 3
Wetland BB is enclosed (DP2). Photographs of Wetland AA and Wetland BB are enclosed as
Photographs C - D.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704-527-1177 or through email at [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding this request.
Sincerely,
C -te 45;6,
Paul A. Bright Craig R. Wyant, RLA/SWS
Staff Scientist II Senior Resource Analyst
Enclosures:
USGS 7.5-Minute Concord, North Carolina Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Cabarrus County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Wetland Boundary Survey
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP 1- SCP2)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP1- SCP2)
USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (DPI - DP2)
Representative Photographs (Photographs A - F)
cc: Mr. Scott Lanigan, Atlantic American Properties, LLC
\VMss-00ct0alserver312007\Projects12007-2097R Kannapolis,Bio-RepositoryUD ReportUD Letter.doc
1Kannapolis PEo-Repository Project No. 2007-2097
Jurisdictional Delineation Report and Request for Verification
11 ul .1, Y' ?1f . 0 9fi .:,. k 1??
11 J? x Ia,.. 1 a r a ?.? `fah t 1 0
N if i t \ ??
. yap". t ,. ? r ? '? 6 U
I '. II It p - ? w'rt ? tl ? Vf 1 ?',' ? a ? a ?Q4?fY I
` II a ! ?I \ .? is . ,. wa
Waal: A Strwmtl
Ch
_ l '?? w ?<\ p - a . Irk
m yfl \ I
,C t +.a. Ll,_ , { \? . `Ji ?., >~*--p _ X 1 . tl #'r .\.,''?v ts1•,i_. it"". ifl 1, g n
tIzi xS `+ + ?? e \ h I l !? 1Li nt cr wts.ori
Fr' ` . v ) ly {? ' ,!? N 1 a1 5 a r A t 1'
T ?yl ?. yY ?.1[r+. ?• -.'r'Mw•.p.?.m.? '? yfNt tI tl? Iii 11
\?w y; h ?+ 313
J
Irv
,f. ? t , ? ?`;. ?.,,. ? , ? A4r - ha..ti' ??V ?i'.. to""" ?da?:-i- ?" h"- ? ` ?•,?''il"".
't a _ yyI ?. r ?F y fly
f ;\'". a, c Cw!• as l J YEa ?F? ? ? ?\ ( 't"e" r?7'?11 1j i
AJ?+q'Z* I [r ti _u IbW N\ v ;OuY? 1 ?`?, 4?wa.a r+ I ? v+, ?'Ii rf1]1 jl
???\ !; , \?, .\\ ? +^t' L \ ? ? +r ??I,:,tl ?Cl ..-? y ?i7`F?p ? \? ??- ??,- ? ? ' ?' ? ?? "`?+?lu.,.k??? 11 \+ ,'
'R`\ T V its ?? T# 1A`, ,? ?'.1 ?A1xxm..l? ^•.P {ti..,\ ,? , . °
4'
?? viv 4 + 1 .?` 'Y at fj ° it ?c1i
? ,,•? 0?+: .•.?,? 7i4 V s? ? `c ??J ( '4, x,F,•)`l '?'.? `. ? I ?, IM 1 ? {',' 1? ; a li .¢ '{.
p ?'.1 1 I 1
r ATt _ _ ?j? - R? F • r?r;-? t"(? io?c,t B aurt?l:u? 1
all
- 77:
_,yy > a y e??H:u1m 3 c.r+y 'y lt4X't? ?' '? • t//a:
k-'?t1,?MV1iWe A.
? + 1 ??'"? ?\?etT I1 I
\' r " v ` >t 1 37 v ? .. y,?,:ql ? ??aal 1 'dw ? °jat
tl; altsd, , e Ft I I ?? tia ?' - (?
1
v? ? v ,? ,?"'?? ? '?,, ..1 ` 1Y C ? t l ti? ' ! I ? , 1? n•.
x
.`(• I
?
II
\ h ,
?II >w 1 1 1
H k t \ ,,'} ,, \ 1 \ x It b,1 a' \ 11 i1,
?
"???' +??v `? ? 1,1 '? ? ? ? ''?? '\ ?`x 1o I I, %i ?i+' pN-' 11 IN• . _ . 4 t ? 1 I ,1 11`I
\? ` 1t` L 1\. \ x 3)S 'GCI'T1 Jli 1`? UI 1 I' _ • R•°* _ 1
3?r 1 `1? ,Y \ yt ILA ._ `. + 6150
\ III \
bnraln Ld
r;' •?, tl ?' X11 \ Ill ` 5t,.. iU ?yl? ' ,Lhpklt@r ?,.-n_x'. 1' '. • .\? 1 i`?A'riCA9't?
1?
L4!i ttn LY t 11- ??.• P d ay.: `Ir -??x. d 6'?
'"v1 A u,''"?1 A\ . \'. Z P 1 1' ,I 1/ rte ° `.11
il"y '. ?t I a \.• ?1G `;i• '1 \ ?.v,.....>` , .\?,•YN ,l+?w., a li, +' I1, 1 ,?i3 ,,..? /.; ?
IaMis
7)c MT 72
?? II '? i ?; ? 1 t` ?,?, ,•l ? ?t C ?t. ' lttMN? l r ? li f .' ? 1 a y?'
1l• ?I?' I 1.. - ? ,'{ •'.i A\ . ?t? A >I?? ??1 1 ?? litr ? I hl ., ' ? 1 ??
II?i ?li ?'t)ob ?? _11 ,7lr7
,fpy'
Ennl?a a rcU I 1I
I 1
1 II 11 II ?1 111 v ?,' Il.. ,-=r' ?'
1. vLl \ Iv I 3 C3 M`
?i; - ? ??1, - t?Z 1. 1. - • ?
image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Concord, North Carolina, dated 1991.
Approximate Scale F = 2000'
Kannapolis Bio-Depository
Jurisdictional Delineation Deport and Request for Verification project No. 2007-2097
u;
l
G
3

T]
SoU Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS
NRCS Soil Survey of Cabamxs County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 2, dated 1982.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
AnU
C
i
i i
1
m
m cn
a?
a
U
N O
? N
C .C /
OC)
N O
?rc
?n
\\ ? . _
U)
N
l '
1 I
f,
NpNNbO
a
G U
(0 ?
O
O
r
1

i?
i?
r
W
i
y ?r

r
w
J
Q
j U
LLJ
X
O
d
d
Q
j"
'' ca
J
i !®I M
Cn ,? N V
Q
W 9 ?
CJ ? N
o
?
w

?
U ? IA
S,

W 4N ? .m m 0.?
® o U m R ra
4.4
>
ca
u
0.

W FBI
gg

N
(0 C
?, C
O

Q C
a C
C C C ?

M cB O a
a
O
O
m o c m

U

U
?, I O
d
o T L a) ro o
D
a-

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Lynne Safrit, representing DHM Holding Company, hereby certify that I have
authorized Craig R. Wyant of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my behalf and
take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request for
wetlands determination/permitting and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
'plicant's ign ure
b'o c c-tic ,
3 1?3 l J `u
Date
Agent's signature
02/26/08
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: February 11, 2008
COUNTY Cabarrus County, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT -6 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Kannapolis Bio-Repository
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Atlantic American Properties, LLC
POC: Mr. Scott Lanigan, at [phone]
226 Oak Avenue
Kannapolis, NC 28081
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
POC: Mr. Craig R. Wyant, at [phone]
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) USGS 7.5-Minute Concord, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X) NRCS Cabarrus County Soil Survey
(X) Wetland Boundary Survey (Figure 1)
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP 1 - SCP2)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP 1- SCP2)
(X) USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
(X) Routine On-Site Data Forms (DP 1 - DP2)
(X) Representative Photographs (Photographs A - F)
Signature of Pro erty Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Craig R. Wyant
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date_ 02/07/2008 €'r°le£t: Kannapolis Bio-Repository Latitode: N35.493840
------------ ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
--------------- -----------------
Evaluator ) LJ & PAB Site: SCP1 Longitude: W80.609930
---------------------•------------------ ----------------- - - -------------
Totai Points: Other Perennial RPW A
Stearn is of feast ?nternftert County,
if? 19 or erewla'it? 30 32.50 Cabarrus e.g. CtuadlVafne:
A. Gsemor holy Subtotal - 15.5 s
-
--
f?
----------------------------- Absent

.

... -Weak Moderate Strong

_.
-----
--------------------------
-
'. Continuous bed and bank
I 2.0 0 1 ? 3
i 2 Sinuosity 0 ! ! +

.. . . .... .....................................................................................
...... . ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence

........{..___

1.0

-.....-..-.._--.__-_._

0

___...-{._....__.

_._.._.__.__.._..

1

._.__.__{__._.._____.-__-._
----
2

_-___--.___?
----------------------------------
--..-._---
---
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodpiarn 2
- - + 0

---------- ---------

----- -

1
- -
?

- - °--

3
- - - - - - -
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.01: 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0:! 3 1 2 3
o"". Recent alluvial deposits
t-----------
-- ---------
---------- =?
--

------+--------
1
-------------- -
G
--------i---------------------
3
-----------+-----------------------------
-----------------
-----------
-
•--------------------------------------------------------
9 ' Natural levees 1.01 0 1 2 3
19. Headcuts 1.0: 0 1 2 3
- -------------------------------------------------------•---------

11. Grade controls
-
-

.5 - -- --------

? - :5
..-.....{........._._..Q. `.. .............._--_--..........._............ {..............__
...
..............................-....----....------..__................._....._._..._..............--__.._.
12 Natural valley or drainageueaY ........{...-.
1.0 ; .-_._......._.
_
0
0.5 i
------------------------ -----

5
..........................................
---- --------------------- --------------------- ....................

13_ Second or greater order channel on existing ---- ---------------•--• --- _---- ........
...
..
USGS or ]ARCS map or other documented NO = 0 Yes= 3
evidence. 0.0
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology ___(Subtotal =_ 8.5 _,, - ---------------
14. Ground)Aeter floWdischarge 2.0! 0 1 2 3 _
i 15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
a
1
`
3
'Water in channel -- dry or --town season
i --- - f --------------------------------------....- --- ------------------ ---------------- 3.0'
-------------- ------- - -- ------ - --------------------------------
---------
16. €.eaflitter 0.5 15 1 0.5 0
IT Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1-5
18. Organic debris lines or ilex (Wrack lines 1:
---
- 0
- 0.5
- - 1
- - - - - - - - - 1.5
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
----
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5: ------- ------------- -------
------
Pilo = 0 ----------- - Yes= 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 8.50
- Q'. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel
--
- 3,0 3 2 1
----------------- --------- . ......----T----- -------------- --•----- - - -0 '
-
-
- - -----
22. Crayfish 0.0:: 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 i 0 ! 1 2 3

------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------

24. Fish
- - ,

0.0
--- -------

0
----- ----- - - - --

0.5
------------+----- - ----- -

--------
1 ------------- - --

-
1.5
-------
----- -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25_ Amphibians ----------------
0.0 i ------------------------------- {-------------------- -
0 0.5 1 1.5
28. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.0 0
---- 0.5
- .....--------
--- .....•--------------------------
------ - 1
----...---------..-._.-.•--- 1.5
-------------•--......----
.......................•--....----•-------------------------------•--......-•------•-----....-..-...--
27. Filamentous algae, periphyton ---------------
1.01 -------•---....
0 -
-
•, 1
.._.---------------------'{.._..------- 2
--------------------{.--....- 3
--_-----.----•_.----------:
---------------------......__--.._.--........_..._.`...-_......._..__........_-----------------.....
28- iron oxidizing bacteria./fungus. _.._...--.{_.
1.5 ...--....._."___...._..________{_.......
0 0.5 s 1.5
2
.9:'. Wetland plants in strearnbed
- - - - - - - --------------------------- -
0.00
- - -
FAC = 0.5;
- - --
FACW = 0. 75, OBL = 1.5
-- - - - - -
SA`J = 2, 0:
- - -
Other = 0
- -- - -
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland p lants, Item 29 focuses °n the presence of aquatic or wetland plants .
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side this form for additional notes.)
----------------- -----------------------...---------------------- - -
j '. L., 7 Z
`_ ------------------ --j???
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Farm; Version 3.1
Date: 02/07/2008 Project- Kannapolis Bio-Repository Latitude, N35------ -.49------------384°--- ---------------------
----------------------------- --------------------------------Evaluator= MLJ & PAB Site: SCP2 Longitude: W80.60993°
- - -------------- ------------- -------------- -- -
Total Points: Other Perennial RPW A
Stream is at feast 1'nter17;rttert County:
if-a 19 or erennial if ? 3o 11-Y 00 Cabarrus e.g. Quad Name.
A_ Geomorphology (subtotal= 17.5
----------- --
- Absent
-- - _- -
-- Teak
- Moderate - Strong,
1". Continuous bed and bank 3.0! 0 1 2 3
Sinuosity 2.Oa
-
-------- -- -- --
2 ------- -- ------------
= -
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2.0' -------------- -------{-------- ----------
1 -- ----------
-
2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1,0: 3 1 2 3
5- Activelrelic floodpiain 1-9:
----------------------------------------
---- -
-------------------
------- 2 3
...............
- -
Depositional bars or benches t
2.01 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.01 0 1 2 3
o. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0 0
._____-_-____.--.-_.____.-------- __-_____________-_.___________
___.__-___--_______------------- . 2 -
_.}____________-.-.---__-____------ ,--------- -3 -
_-------------------------- --.-______...___
1 9' Natural levees ,
2.0; 0 1 2
---- 3
---------------
10. Headcuts 0.0:: 0 1 : 2 3 '
- -- -------------•------------------••----------------•----------------------

11. Grade controls ------ r

0.51

0 -

._..

0.5
-....--.......---......
---•---- - -
-
: 1
..i---------------------------------- ---......._..
-------------
-
1.5
_
---------------------
.. . . .. . .. . ............-.................._.....----i ..................... ._....
12_ Natural valley or draina• euray 1.01 0

----------------------------------- •----------------------°•---------------------...--•----------------•---------------------------
-
--- .......i...-_

------------- 0.5
I
- -

?...................
----
-
--
•. 13_ Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented No= 0 Yes= 3
evidence. 0.01
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal _ 7.5 -
- - --
- ---------------------------- -
----------------
--------------------
----- ---------
----------- -----------
-- -------------------- ------------- ----- -- -------------
14. Ground?AeterfloWdischarge 2.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, ar 0 1 2 3
Water in channel - dry or ro nn? season - •• 2.0! --
-----••--
-
----------------•-- ---
--------------------------------------------
-
------ ---
- -
10. t.eafftter 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
1 IT Sediment on plants or debris 0.01 0 0.5 1
----- 1.5
----------------
Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
18. 0-5' 0
5 E
-
' 1=5
-
_-
19. € ydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1,5 -------------------- ----
------
No = 0 -
- -
-
Yes= 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 8.00 )
Fibrous foots in channel 3,0 3 2 1 0
21`_ Rooted plants in channel 3,0 3 ! 2
--
i 1
-------------- --;---------- 0 ---
--.._..---
- - - - -
22_ Cfayfosh -------------
-
-- ---------------------- -- --
0.0! 0 0.5 1 1.S
23. Bivalves 0.0! 0 1
-
--
- 2

- 3

- -
---
----- - -------------------- - - - -
24. Fish ----- -- -
0.0 -- -
0 -
-'----------- -- ........... -----
0.5
-----------+------------- -
'
--------------- --------- 1.5
------
--------
---------- ------------------ -------------------
25_ Amphibians 0.01 0 --
26. ?,€acrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.0 0 0.5
.-
-------- ...--------------- €
------------ .. -----•-----.....- 1.5
•----------•-•-•------
- ------------------------------------•---•--.....----••----•------------------.......-•-------------
27. Filamentous algae: periphy#on - --------- •-1-
1.01 -..-..--•-----------------
0 -
---------------------- .....
1 !
----- +---------------------------------- +--------------- 2
-------- ----------- '------ •---- 3
----------•-----------
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------------- 4-----------------------------
28- Iron oxidizing bacterialtun us. 1.01 0 0.5 i 1.5
29'. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00: FAC = 0.5;
- FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
- - - - -- - - - - ----- SAV = 2.0: Other= 0
--------------------- - - -............ .
- - - --- - - - - ---
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, hero 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch.
Notes: fuse back side 4this form for additional notes.)

----------- .....>- ---------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Perennial RPW A
al STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Jill'
1. Applicant's Name: Atlantic American Properties, LLC. 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins and Paul Bright
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/7/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:30 am
5. Name of Stream: UT to Cold Water Creek- 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 50 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 if 10. County: Cabarrus
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte take I-77 N and merge onto 1-85 N via
exit 13A towards Greensboro Travel approximately 19.5 miles and merge onto US-29 N / S Cannon Boulevard / US-601 N via exit
58 toward Kannapolis Travel approximately 4 miles and turn left onto Chipola Street. Travel approximately 0.1 mile and the site is at
the corner of Chipola Road and N Cannon Boulevard
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.493840W80.60993°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 50 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters ,-Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES O
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 60 % Residential
10 % Forested
21. Bankfull Width: 2-3'
20 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
10 % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1-4'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 38 Comments: Upper portion of channel is highly degraded from past grading
activities No riparian buffer. Deep narrow channel exhibits little to no habitat Strong evidence of nutrient discharge.
Evaluator's Signature Z/ --I- Date_ *-! 7 -
This channel evaluation forms intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1- Perennial RPW A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ # E
SCP2 - Perennial RPW A
i•. ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Q
1. Applicant's Name: Atlantic American Properties, LLC 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins and Paul Bright
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/7/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:30 am
5. Name of Stream: UT to Cold Water Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 50 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 50 If
10. County: Cabamis
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte, take I-77 N and merge onto I-85 N via
exit 13A towards Greensboro Travel approximately 19.5 miles and merge onto US-29 N / S Cannon Boulevard / US-601 N via exit
58 toward Kannapolis Travel approximately 4 miles and turn left onto Chipola Street Travel approximately 0.1 mile and the site is at
the corner of Chipola Road and N Cannon Boulevard
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.49384°, W80.60993°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunnv 50 decrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 60 % Residential 20 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
10 % Forested 10 % Cleared/ Logged ?% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 4-5' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1-2'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 50 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature` ° /ice Date `'?d / 6 J
This channel evaluation form is tended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 - Perennial RPW A
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
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): February 7, 2008
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Columbia Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Kannapolis Bio-Repository - Perennial RPW A
State:NC County/parish borough: Cabarrus City: Kannapolis
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.49384° N, Long. 80.60993° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Cold Water Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Concord Lake
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Yadkin (HU# 03040105)
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are 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: February 8, 2008
Field Determination. Date(s): February 7, 2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
.............
review area. [Required]
Q 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 Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
(j Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
S Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
El 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
[Q, Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 398 linear feet: width (ft) and/or 0.03 acres.
Wetlands: 0.03 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on t98`De131aea(?n1V)Etua!
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
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 III below.
For purposes of this form, an PPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
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 III.A.1 and Section 11I.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HI.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 summarizes 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 Rapanos 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, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HI.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will 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 waterbodya 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 III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IH.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick list river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick list aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
° 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.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: Ieet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands
? Cobbles ? Gravel
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
? Concrete
? Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: 14 last
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Picit List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Piek 1.4. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ? the presence of litter and debris
? changes in the character of soil ? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
? shelving ? the presence of wrack line
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ? sediment sorting
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ? scour
? sediment deposition ? multiple observed or predicted flow events
? water staining ? abrupt change in plant community
? other (list):
F-1 Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
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 lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored , oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in 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 indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? 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:
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: 0.01 and 0.02 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Wetland AA and Wetland BB are herbacous wetlands.
Wetland quality. Explain: Natural wetlands, some disturbances.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain: Wetlands are adjacent to a perennial stream.
Surface flow is: Discrete
Characteristics: There are pockets of standing water from recent storm events due to past grading activities adjacent
to the stream.
Subsurface flow: Yes. Explain findings: Depth to saturated soil is <12".
? 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/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 1=2 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1-2 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland
.to<navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2-e floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: Dominant vegetation within these areas includes tag alder (Alnus serrulata), river cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), soft stem
rush (Juncus effusus), seedbox (Ludwigia altemifolia), and various grasses (Festuca sp.). Wetland AA and Wetland BB
exhibited low chroma soils (1 OYR 4/2), many distinct mottles (5YR 4/4), water marks, drainage patterns, inundation to 3
inches, oxidized root channels within the upper 12 inches, and saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: N/A.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 100% FAC or wetter.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 2
Approximately ( 0.03 ) 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)
Wetland AA (Y) 0.01
Wetland BB (Y) 0.02
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: flood storage and pollutant removal.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis 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 integrity
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 insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited 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 wetland lies 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 lifecycle 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:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly 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:
3. 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:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
Q` TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
F-1, Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. 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: Stream A was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited average ordinary high water widths of 2-5 feet,
moderate flow, and substrate consisting of coarse sand to small gravel. Biological sampling within Perennial Stream A
resulted in a weak presence filamentous algae and a strong presence of iron oxidizing bacteria. The upper portion of Perennial
Stream A is highly degraded from past grading activities and lacks riparian buffer. Portions of this section of channel are deep
and narrow and exhibit little to no habitat with strong evidence of nutrient discharge. USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Scores for Perennial Stream A ranged from 38 to 50 points out of a possible 100 points and ranged from 32 to 33.5 out of 71
possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCPI - SCP2).
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):
Tributary waters: 398 linear feet 2-5 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWs8 that flow directly 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 directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly 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: Wetland AA and Wetland BB are directly connected via surface water connection
Perennial Stream A.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.03 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into 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 jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into 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.
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):"
"See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
io 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 Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
? 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.
0 Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
?' Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Q 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.
0 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).
Q Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Q 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.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., 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 finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: 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
an d requested, appropriately reference sources below):
( Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
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/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
( Corps navigable waters' study:
Q U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Concord, North Carolina, dated 1991.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Cabarrus County, Sheet No. 2, dated 1982.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
?! State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
?' FEMA/FIRM maps:
?; 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Q' Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): See attached report.
?!, Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
?', Applicable/supporting case law:
?' Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Kannapolis Bio-Re ository Date: 02/07/08
Applicant/Owner: Atlantic American Properties, LLC County: Cabarrus
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, WPIT and Paul Bright State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP1
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Lonicerajaponica Stratum Indicator
vine FAC- Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Juncus effusus herb FACW+ 10
3 Rubus argutus herb FACU+ 11
4 Andropogon virginicus herb FAC- 12
5 Festuca sp. herb * 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
25%
Remarks:
Less than 50% of the dominant
plant species are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology are resent.
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 1 of 2 2/11/2008
Rnil R
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cecil-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes (CeB) Drainage Class well-drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T is Kanha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B 10YR 4/4 loamy sand
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of h dric soils are resent.
WFTI AND DFTFRMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes AN (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area. There are pockets of standin
water from recent storm events due to past grading activities adjacent to the stream.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2 218i2008
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Kannapolis Bio-Repository Date: 02/07/08
Applicant/Owner: Atlantic American Properties, LLC County: Cabarrus
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, WPIT and Paul Bright State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP2
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
1 Alnus serrulata tree FACW
2 Arundinaria gigantea herb FACW
3 Ludwigia alternifolia herb OBL
4 Andropogon glomeratus herb FACW+
5 Cyperus strigosus herb FACW+
6 Juncus effusus herb FACW+
7 Festuca sp. herb
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 1-3" (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: <12" (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 1 of 2 2/11/2008
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cecil-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes (CeB) Drainage Class well-drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T is Kanha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B 10YR 4/2 5YR 4/4 many/distinct sandy silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of h dric soils are resent.
WF_TI ANn DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Ye No Ils this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2 218/2008
Kannapodis Bio-Reposhory
.gnu isfflctiona? Delineation Report and Request for Verification Project No. ?®®?-?®? ?
Photograph A. View of Perennial Stream A, facing downstream trom unipoia nuau.
Photograph B. View of Perennial Stream A, facing downstream.
KannnpoBs Bio-Repository
?tunu-isdietionad ]CDellineation Relpou•t and Reguuest for Verification IEnu o?eet No. ?®?9-?®??
B A
Photograph C. View of Wetland AA, facing south.
Photograph D. View of Wetland BB adjacent to Stream A, Ming upstream.
KnnnapoHs Bio-Repository
Sup iscfictionM DeVineatuon Report and Request for Verification ]??o¶ect No. ?®®9-?®? 1
Photograph E. View of cleared portion of site from past grading activities, facing you hwest.
Photograph F. View of non jurisdictional upland area adjacent to Stream A, tacmg norm.