20160828 Ver 1_401 Application_20170303

I[STv 100
Lei
March 3, 2017
Via FEDERAL EXPRESS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Jason Randolph
RECEIVEDINCDENRIDWR
MAR -6 20f]
WQROS
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 39 — Supplemental Information
Christ the King Catholic High School Expansion
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Previous USACE Action ID 201300300
Dear Mr. Randolph:
On behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, and in cooperation with Little Diversified
Architectural Consulting (LITTLE), STV Engineers, Inc. (STV), is submitting supplemental
information as you requested pursuant to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number 39 — Commercial and Institutional Developments (Federal
Register Vol. 77, No. 34; updated February 21, 2012) for the permitting requirements of the
proposed expansion to Christ the King Catholic High School. The first section contains
responses to comments provided by the USACE and the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) on the PCN submitted. Attachment #1 provides the additional Wetland
Determination Data Forms, representative photographs, and an updated Figure 4 —
Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map depicting the locations of the
additional Wetland Determination Data Form sites; Attachment #2 contains City of Kannapolis
correspondence; Attachment #3 contains NC SAM training materials; Attachment #4 contains
11" X 17" permit drawings with added details for clarity; Attachment #5 contains another copy of
the PCN signature page; Attachment #6 contains the Stormwater Management Plan
calculations and plan sheets. Please feel free to contact either of the undersigned at (704) 372-
1885 should you have any questions or concerns regarding this supplemental information
provided for the request for Nationwide Permit #39.
Sincerely,
S ngineerNCH.
randon J. hil. Michael A. lagnocco, PWS
Senior Sci ntisProject Manager/Senior Scientist
Dennis Terry, Little Diversified Architectural Consulting
Alan Johnson, NCDWR

Action ID 201300300
Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte
Christ the King High School Expansion
USACE Comments received via email on March 27 & 28, 2017; responses are in bold.
Amending my comment #3 below, 2:1 for the currently proposed 120LF and 1:1 for the previous 135LF =
375LF.
Please see below for feedback on the subject PCN:
1) Development is depicted on the opposite of the RPW subject of this PCN. Unless I am missing it, it is
not evident that an updated presence/absence search for aquatic resources has been performed on this
part of the property in recent years. In my experience, disturbed or abandoned mining sites can develop
wetlands especially after the surface topography and surface hydrology are altered by mechanized
activities and removal of trees. Please present data reflecting an evaluation of the subject expansion
area for presence/absence of waters and wetlands via EMP regional supplement data sheet(s) and
photos.
As indicated on page 7 of the January 27, 2017 cover letter which accompanied our application,
"There is no current timetable for future expansions and these improvements would be
subject to enrollment demands and funding. As depicted on Drawing WD -1 in Attachment
C, it's envisioned that future expansion would be accommodated in the upland portions
of the site without anticipated future impacts to waters of the U.S." There is no current
timetable for future high school facilities. As further stated on page 7, "Subsequent to the recent
reclassification of Stream RPW 3 as a perennial channel, no longer eligible for a waiver,
the Master Plan was abandoned. The Diocese is currently not investing financial
resources on an updated Master Plan for the site." The 'future buildings' shown on WD -1 are
for illustrative purposes to show that future development can occur without impacts to waters of the
U.S.
To respond to your comment, STV overlaid the 'future buildings' shown on WD -1 with an aerial of the
site, and performed a field review on March 1, 2017 for the presence/absence of aquatic resources in
this area; the data point locations are depicted on the revised Exhibit (Attachment #1). Corresponding
EMP Wetland Determination Data Forms and representative photos are also included in Attachment
#1. As indicated on the data forms, the area posed for future development, which as indicated is not
programmed and would be contingent on funding and enrollment demands, is an upland area.
2) The State and I have concern that local ordinances will later require a 2nd road crossing of the
tributary, thus resulting in additional impacts that could've been foreseeable. Currently you have only 1
entry into the opposite side of that tributary. Please provide evidence that local municipalities will not
require another road crossing.
Attachment #2 includes correspondence from the City of Kannapolis that indicates that there are no
current ordinances requiring a second crossing of the tributary as part of future development. The
Diocese further recognizes that any impacts associated with future development, though none is
programmed, must avoid impacts to waters of the U.S. (WOUS) to the maximum extent practicable

and that any future impacts when considered cumulatively with impacts to date cannot exceed the
nationwide permit thresholds.
3) Following up on pre -app discussion about mitigation, the original 135 LF of stream loss and the
currently proposed 120 LF of stream loss have been determined to be impacts that were reasonably
foreseeable. Based on a) the language of the original permit verification, dated 15 March 2013, b) site
visit observations, and c) email rationale provided below, cumulative compensatory mitigation at a 2:1
ratio will be necessary for these losses. The 2:1 ratio you have proposed for wetlands is acceptable.
The Diocese continues to take exception to the categorization of the current impacts as
`reasonably foreseeable.' As stated in the cover letter on page 6, under Purpose and Need, "the
Diocese had envisioned that future expansion would not be realized for five to 10 years.
However, current applications for enrollment far exceed the Dioceses' short-term
expectations and the current capacity of the existing campus which, in turn, has greatly
accelerated the nextphase of construction." Since the currently proposed improvements
were neither programmed nor funded at the time of the initial building construction,
suggesting that these impacts were reasonably foreseeable is simply not a true
statement. That being said, we concur that the language in the original nationwide permit
allows the impacts to be considered cumulatively and for mitigation to be considered
similarly. The Diocese will purchase mitigation credits from the NCDMS to cover the
initial 135 If of stream impact at 1:1. It is our understanding that NCSAM is to be used to
help objectively establish mitigation ratios. Included in Attachment #3 are copies of
several slides presented at last year's training workshops which support this
understanding. Based on our previous discussions, you had concurred with our NCSAM
rating, which concluded that the resource being impacted had an overall rating of LOW.
The Diocese continues to strongly object to a request for 2:1 mitigation for the current
impacts, given the well-documented past history of the site, the existing condition of the
resource, and considers this seemingly subjective request to be arbitrary and capricious.
Amending my comment #3 below, 2:1 for the currently proposed 120LF and 1:1 for the previous 135LF =
375LF.
We are also supposed to start asking whether or not your proposed work will have "percussive"
activities related to the NLEB. A brief comment would suffice for the record.
Based on the geotechnical information gathered from the site, percussive activities are not expected
during construction of the project. Consequently, percussive -related impacts to the NLEB, in the
unlikely event that these bats are utilizing the project area, would not occur.
NCDEQ, DWR comments received via email on February 3; responses are in red.
These comments are in no particular order. I understand the basics, just want clarification
1) There is some trepidation regarding the overall vision of the site. The application states they
plan to house up to 1200 students, but yet there is no overall Master Plan. Even a conceptual
design as to what impacts might be foreseeable to triple the school's size. Or is that shown in
WD -1? Please seethe response to the USACE comment number 1 above; the only buildings
programmed and which are the subject of this application are identified on WD -1 as 'Proposed
Building Expansion: The Diocese does not have the current financial resources to invest in an

updated Master Plan. Proposed impacts are occurring as a result of the fire lane shown on
WD -1 & WD -2 which is a City of Kannapolis requirement and the wetland crossing shown on
WD -1 & WD -3 which is an NCDOT requirement. No additional impacts to waters of the U.S.
are proposed or anticipated. Is so, no other stream crossing is proposed or required by the
city? Please see response to USACE comment 2 above and Attachment #2 for documentation
from the City of Kannapolis. Providing on 11 X 17 would be helpful Please see Attachment #4
for a full set of 11x17 exhibits.
2) It would be good to see the overlay of the proposed new crossing (120 If) on the existing
stream/wetland location with proper notification/indication/If etc. (a "cut out"/blow up may
be helpful) WD -2 may try to serve that purpose. Placing on a 11 X 17 would be more helpful
Please see an updated WD -2A and the 'blow up' provided as WD -26 on 11x17 — see
Attachment #4
3) 1 would show the existing facility and overlay the proposed facility/road crossings.
WD -1 (Attachment #4) has been updated; the exhibit labels the existing campus building and
facilities, the proposed building expansion and driveway extension to Shiloh Church Road,
which are the subject of this application, and future building expansion, which as previously
stated are not programmed nor funded at this time.
4) WD -3, what is that a diagram of? Where is this located? Found it... #3 above would
provide/assist in clarification.
For clarity, WD -1 has been updated to depict the driveway extension to Shiloh Church Road
(Attachment #4) WD -3 further depicts the proposed wetland impact resulting from the
required school driveway connection to Shiloh Church Road; as previously indicated this
driveway is an NCDOT requirement for this proposed high school expansion.
5) You didn't sign the PCN form (just need a copy of that with the signature to add to the file)
A pdf of the signed PCN page was previously emailed to your attention on February 30, 2017;
a hard copy of this page is included as Attachment #5.
6) In your verbal description under "Impacts to Waters of the US", it would be helpful to identify
on the schematic/diagram, the section of stream/wetland that will utilize French drains and how
that is routed. This includes clarification of the concrete flum. Is this at the outfall of the
culvert? Wouldn't a riprap apron be more appropriate to dissipate energy. Is this just catching
the water immediately up gradient as is current the case? Does it also catch the SW from the
shopping center. This needs clarification. Essentially a visual cue would be helpful in following
the explanation, regarding the Plum.
Exhibit WD -28 (Attachment #4) provides an enlargement of the stream impact area and
provides additional illustration of the concrete flume and the off- site drainage collection
system; the following narrative further describes existing and proposed conditions in this
regard.

There are two existing storm drainage pipes (18" CPP and 36" CMP) that capture offsite
stormwater to prevent erosion of the existing 20' high 2:1 cut slope along the property line.
These drainage pipes were installed during the initial (Phase 1) construction of the campus to
alleviate existing erosion caused by a significant volume of offsite drainage point discharges.
The existing 36" CMP was designed to capture BMP runoff from the adjacent Renaissance
Shopping Center. This 12,000 SF BMP captures storm runoff from approximately 10 acres of
impervious area and has a draw down period of 7 —14 days. In 2011, during Phase I design of
the school, the Renaissance BMP discharge flowed through a swale north of the BMP along
the property line and into an open eroded ravine on the school's property. The 36" CMP was
installed to intercept this flow at a capture point on the property line and the eroded areas
were filled in and repaired.
Following the construction of Christ the King Phase I, the Renaissance BMP discharge swale
was not properly maintained by the shopping center and the swale filled with sediment and
vegetation to the point to where it no longer functioned as designed. Due to this failure in
design/maintenance, the BMP discharge point changed (emphasis added) from its 2011
discharge point which our initial design was based on. The new BMP discharge point is now
located 200 L.F. to the west of the original location that the 2011 stormwater design was
based on. Because of this change in offsite drainage, the design team was forced to move the
2011 capture point from its original location to the new point of discharge. Furthermore, a
proposed retaining wall associated with the classroom expansion located in the same area as
the 36" CMP and 18" CPP, also forced the relocation of the existing drainage pipes due to
conflicts in grade elevations.
The current 2017 classroom expansion design drawings reflect the new proposed rerouted
storm drainage pipes. These pipes now have a new capture point that responds to the offsite
discharge points. This drainage system also has a new discharge point on the school's
property that has been located farther west than originally designed. Geotechnical
exploration conducted in 2016 discovered subsurface ground saturation in the area of the
proposed building pad. In an attempt to reduce the amount of subsurface water in the
building pad area, the design team has proposed to bypass all offsite storm water around
(emphasis added) the building pad location so that it discharges further north of the proposed
expansion. A key component in the design of this offsite stormwater bypass system is the
installation of a 10' wide 140' long concrete flume with 2:1 side slopes. This flume has a
design slope of 1% with a 20' long riprap apron at the flume's outfall. These two design
measures will ensure the water velocity from the offsite stormwater is dissipated to the
greatest extent possible before it enters into the preserved existing Wetland 100.
The solid impervious nature of the concrete flume will prevent offsite stormwater from
recharging the existing ground water in the vicinity of the proposed building pad. This design
also proposes 145 L.F. of 8" perforated pipe and gravel drainage bed to be installed in the
existing flow line of the existing 36" CMP and 18" CPP outlets. These subsurface drainage
applications will further alleviate subsurface hydraulic saturation in the building pad area.
This proposed drainage pipe will also outlet in the proposed 20' riprap apron as illustrated on
Exhibit WD -2B to dissipate energy to the greatest extent possible.

7) 250 If mitigation is required. This is easily covered under the amount requested and approved
by DMS
The Diocese is fully prepared to provide mitigation for the initial (Phase 1) impacts of 135 L.F.
as well as the current 120 L.F. of impact at 1:1 or 255 L.F. The Diocese continues to object the
seemingly subjective requirement of 2:1 mitigation for the current impacts and continues to
implore that further consideration be given to 1:1 mitigation.
8) We need a copy of the existing approved SW plan and will need a copy of the proposed SW plan
for the new construction once the SW plan is approved.
The stormwater management plan is currently being reviewed by the City of Kannapolis. The
Storm Drainage Calculations are included as Attachment #6; full-sized drawings are also being
provided. The stormwater plan must be approved prior to construction commencing. The
Diocese expects the approval of the stormwater management plan to be a condition of the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

Action ID 201300300
Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte
Christ the King High School Expansion
March 3, 2017
Attachment # 1
Revised Figure 4, Photographs and
Wetland Determination Data Forms

Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte March 1, 2017
Christ the King High School Expansion — Supplemental Photos
Photograph 1 — A view of the uplands on the opposite side of the RPW from the existing school
building; photo taken looking east toward the existing school.
building; looking west toward the forest line from the field.
-hool

Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte March 1, 2017
Christ the King High School Expansion - Supplemental Photos

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Christ the King High School Expansion Gly/County Kannapolis/Cabarrus
ApplicantlOWner: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte State. NC
Sampling Date. 03-1-17
Sampling Point. DP4X1
Investigator(s)_ Brandon Phillips, CHMM Section, Township, Range_
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillsloae Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): —2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.444850 N Long. -80.760580W Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name. Enon sandy loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No_ (If no, explain in Remarks_)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations. transects. important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks
DPMXI is representative of uplands (See Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map Exhibit for approximate
location of DPkX 1).
HYDROLOGY
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CH
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines IBM)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks.
Wetland Hydrology indicators are not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DFNX1
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'mdius )
%Cover
species?
Status
100
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 50
20% of total cover 20
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10'radius )
Number of Dominant Species
1. Li, iodendron tuliaifera
50
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2._ Pinar tneda
30
Yes
FAC
Yes FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3. Acer negundo
20
Yes
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
7.
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
100
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 50
20% of total cover 20
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10'radius )
x4=
UPL species
1. Prunus serotina
15
Yes FACU
2 Ligustrumsinense
10
Yes FACU
3 Quercus alba
10
Yes FACU
7
35 = Total Cover
50% of total cover, 17.5 20% of total cover: 7
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter )
1. Allium vineale 5 Yes FACU
7
50% of total cover 2.5
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot SIZe: 30'radius )
50% of total cover:
rs here or on a separate
Hydrophytic vegetation is not present.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 29 (AIB)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B!A =
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2- Dominance Test is>50%
_ 3- Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplinglShrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greaterthan or equal to 3.28 it (1
m) tall.
Herb —AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardess
5 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20% of total cover 1
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
_ = Total Cover Present? Yes No X
20% of total cover:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP4XI
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to docurnamthe indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loci
Texture Remarks
0-3 10 YR 3/3 60
10 YR 5/6 40 C M
Silt loam
3-20 10 YR 4/6 100
Silt loam
'Type:_ C -Concentration, D-Depletion_RM Reduced Matrix, MS Masked Sand Grains.
'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M-Matrix___
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
—2 cm Muck (A'10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other(Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F 19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ No X
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Indicators were not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Projectisite'. Christ the King High School Expansion CllylCountyKannapolis/Cabami Sampling Date. 03-1-17
Applicant/Owner Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte State: NC Sampling Point: DP#X2
InVestigator(s): Brandon Phillips, CHMM Section, Township, Range'.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex
Subregion (LRR or MLRA). LRR-P Let: - 35.444850 N Long: -80.760580 W
Soil Map Unit Name: Enon sandy loam _ NWI classification:
Slope (%) —2
ons,,, NAD83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _, Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features. etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No --X__
Remarks:
DP#X2 is representative of uplands (See Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map Exhibit rot approximate
location of DP#X2).
HYDROLOGY
PrimarV Indicators (minimum of one is required- check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B'14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (810)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (E313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches).
Water Table Present? Yes_ No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesNo X Depth (inches Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators are not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DPI<X2
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test wofksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius )
0/6 Cover Sinciesv Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
_ _ - _
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC 0 (A)
2.
--
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.
—� -
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply W
50% of total cover.
20% of tote] cover:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10'radius
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x4=
2
g
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index =B/A=
q
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
—
2- Dominance Test is>50%
9.
_
_ 3 -Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
4 _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover.
20% of total cover:
—
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Lolium uerenne
95 Yes FACU
—
2. Andropogon virginicus
5 No FACU
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
SaplinglShrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 it (I
m) tall.
10.
11.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardiess
100 =Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 R tall.
50% of total cover
50 20% of tote] cover: 20
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius )
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
= Total Cover
50% of total cover.
20% of total cover.
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic vegetation is not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sarriplina Point: Dvax2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to documentthe indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color !moist) % Tyoe' Loc'
Texture Remarks
0-20 10 YR 4/3 100
Silt loam
'Type: C=Concentration,_D_ =Depletion, RM=Reduced
Matrix_MS=Masked Sand Grains ._____
Location: PL=Pore Lining, M_M atrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils. __
'
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (173)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR M
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbnc Surface (1713) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic -
Restrictive Layer(if observed):
----T
Type
(inches):
Hydric
ic Soil Present? Yes _ No X
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Indicators were not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

Action ID 201300300
Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte
Christ the King High School Expansion
March 3, 2017
Attachment # 2
City of Kannapolis
Correspondence

Action ID 201300300
Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte
Christ the King High School Expansion
March 3, 2017
Attachment # 3
NCSAM Materials

Mitigating for Permitted lmpa is
1. Assess the impacts to determine the
appropriate mitigation (type and amount)
• Must be approved by District PM
2. Find the source of mitigation
1. Mitigation Banks
2. In -Lieu Fee (NC Division of Mitigation Services)
3. Permittee Responsible
3. Document compliance (verifying the
mitigation has been done)
�V i CflMY,
Mitigating for Permitted Impacts
Assessing the Impacts
NC SAM & NC WAM
• Rapid assessment methods
• Implemented by Public Notice April 21, 2015
• Users should be trained - classes are available
• Limited use for mitigation site development
• Available on Wilmington District RIBITS Website
• Not required for complete PCN, but strongly preferred
(may speed processing of permit application)
UNO
o
N M C.T.J
S USArtny Crops

Mitigating for Permitted Impacts
Assessing the Impacts
NC
SAM
& NC
WAM may be required by
the
PM in
some
cases
1. When an applicant requests a waiver from the limitations found in the NWR
2. To support a decision to require more or less mitigation than is normally required.
3. When mitigation is being required for impacts to wetlands that are less than 1/10 -acre
or less than 150 feet of stream.
4. To support decisions regarding a requirement to avoid and/or minimization impacts to
higher quality wetlands and streams.
5. Enforcement Actions where restoration and/or mitigation is being required.
6. Stream Relocations
Mitigating for Permitted Impacts
NC WAM Dichotomous Key
0091 F

Action ID 201300300
Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte
Christ the King High School Expansion
March 3, 2017
Attachment # 4
11 x 17 Permit Drawings

f,
1
9A
.1-400'
.�

w
z
}J
F
w
a
0
a
U
z
OU N
W
Z J Z U Z W
�waa¢
X m W
LU
a F
OOFXZ
OOFXU
�
F- m ..
it a LLJ
O Z o z o w /
a5�in5
�LLI
oow�
33?UL�
L
7
o C
Q U UZL
3 z��
Li w
X-
ORw va
U
0z
oa w o
0
awV) _
HianHo