20081722 Ver 1_401 Application_20081108

0 8- 1 7 2 2
November 17, 2008 71A 7
r-?
Mr. Steve Chapin
Regulatory . Specialist DI?J
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office 1 8 2008
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 {? ?'
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
DENR - WATER Ut)''u)T Y
WETLp,NDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Re: Application for Nationwide Permit 14
City of Monroe
Goldmine Road Relocation-Phase.II, Union County, North-Carolina
Dear Mr. Chapin:
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR), on behalf of our client, the City of
Monroe, (Agent Authorization Form; attached), is requesting to utilize a Nationwide
Permit for the relocation of Gold mine Road in Union County (Figure 1, enclosed). In
addition, we are asking for verification of jurisdictional waters within the project area
(Stream 2, Stream 3, Wetland A, and Wetland B).
Project Description
The City of Monroe has identified numerous improvements to the Charlotte-Monroe
Executive Airport. The proposed project involves relocation of Goldmine Road from the
intersection of Airport Road and Sanford Road approximately l mile to the east near the
current intersection of Goldmine and Price Short Cut roads (Figure 2, enclosed). The road
relocation will allow for the expansion of the Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport,
provide the necessary access to industrial parcels being developed by the City of Monroe,
and will included additional dedicated left turn lanes at the new Goldmine Road and
Airport Road intersection to better accommodate peak traffic volumes.
Field Review
On March 24, 2008, HDR performed a field assessment of the study area to document
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. that may occur within the relocation alignment. The
study area was examined utilizing the jurisdictional definition detailed in the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual' (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Supplementary information to further support wetland determinations was found in the
National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast Region 2 (Reed, 1988).
On-site data forms along with the updated Jurisdictional Determination Forms were
completed for each wetland. Stream channels were classified according to recent USACE
and DWQ guidance.
NQR Engineering, Inc..o(the Carolinas 128 S7ryon Street Phone. (704),338-6700
Suite 1400 Fax: )704) 338-6760
Charlotte, NC 28202-5004 www.hdrinc.com
Field Results
Based on a review of published information and field investigations, HDR identified
"waters of the U.S." as two jurisdictional wetlands/ponds (Wetlands A & B) and two
jurisdictional stream channels or Relatively Permanent Waters (RPW) (Stream 2 &
Stream 3). One non jurisdictional stream channel was also identified. Table 1.1
summarizes the field results and impacts associated with the Goldmine Road re-
alignment.
Table 1.1 Goldmine Road Re-Ali nment Existing Waters Summary -
DWQ ?USACE Lenoth
[d Classification
Score Score (linearfeet)
-
Jurisdictional Waters
Area
(square

- -feet)
Area

(acres)
-- - -- --
Stream 2 20 39 RPW/Intermittent 111.26 - 0.010
Stream 3 36.5 42 RPW/ Perennial 85.83, - 0.020
Stream Total: 197.09 0.030
_
Wetland A Emergent - 2,679.42 0.06
Wetland B Open Water - 535.30 0.01
Wetland Total: 3,214.72 0.07
Non-Jurisdictional Waters
Stream 1 18.5 30 Non RPW/Ephemeral 248.86
Stream Total: 248.86
Perennial Stream
Stream 3 is a perennial unnamed tributary to Bearskin Creek located in eastern portion of
the project area near the intersection of the current Goldmine Road and Price Short Cut
Road (Figure 4b, enclosed). Channel dimensions included a 10 to 12 foot bankfull width
and 3 to 4 foot bankfull height. The riparian buffer consisted of disturbed immature
woody vegetation ranging from 25 to 50 feet in width. This channel exhibited the crucial
geomorphic, hydrologic, and biological indicators to receive a perennial classification
and RPW status. Completion of the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Form indicated
a score or 42 out of a possible 100 and scored 30 out of possible 71 on the NCDWQ
Stream Classification Form.
Intermittent Stream
Stream 2 is an intermittent unnamed tributary to East Fork of Twelve Mile Creek located
near Sanford Road in the western portion of the project area (Figure 4a, enclosed).
Channel dimensions included 3 to 4 foot bankfull width and approximately 1 foot
bankfull height. The riparian buffer consisted of grasses consistent with pastureland with
no woody species present. The channel exhibited moderate to weak geomorphic,
HDR Engineering, Inc. o(the Carolinas
hydrological, and biological indicators resulting in an intermittent classification.
Completion of the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Form indicated a score or 39 out
of a possible 100 and scored 20 out of possible 71 on the NCDWQ Stream Classification
Form.
Wetlands
Wetland A is an emergent wetland located in the western portion of the project area near
the intersection with Airport and Sanford Roads. This wetland is jurisdictional because it
abuts "an intermittent but not seasonal" RPW that has a significant nexus with a
Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) downstream. Vegetation was dominated by soft rush
(Juncus effusus). Hydrology indicators included inundation, saturation within the upper
12 inches and drainage patterns in the wetlands. In some areas, 6 to 12 inches of standing
water was present. Soils were saturated and exhibited low chroma colors (IOYR 4/1) and
mottling (IOYR 4/5) within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile.
Wetland B is an open water wetland located in the western portion of the project area.
This wetland is jurisdictional because it is adjacent to a seasonal RWP (Stream 2).
Vegetation was dominated by herbaceous species including soft rush. Hydrology
indicators included inundation and saturation within the upper 12 inches. Approximately
6 to 18 inches of standing Water was present throughout. Soils were saturated and
exhibited low chroma colors (10YR 4/1) and mottling (10YR 4/5) within the upper 12
inches of the soil profile.
Wetlands A and B exhibited hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and indicators of
wetland hydrology. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form and Wetland
Determination Datasheet were completed for each and are attached.
Federally Protected Species
We have obtained an updated species list for Union County from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (USFWS) web site (http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/couniyfr.htmi). Table 1.2
lists the three federally protected species in Union County.
Table 1.2
Federallv Protected Species in Union County, North Carolina
Habitat Present/
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Biolo ical Conclusion
Lasmi ona decorata Carolina heels litter E No/No Effect
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower E No/No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E No/No Effect
Notes:
E A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portion of its range"
T A taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
HOR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
Suitable habitat is not present for any of the federally listed species in Union County.
According to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database, no
known populations of these species area located within 5 miles from the project area.
HDR has requested comment from the USFWS regarding these findings. (USFWS
correspondence received, September 30, 2008).
We are hereby requesting written verification of the onsite Jurisdictional Waters and
authorization to construct this project under Nationwide Permit No. 14.
Thank you in advance for your assistance. If you have any questions or require additional
information after you review of the enclosed information, please contact me at (704) 973-
6878.
Respectfully,
&ev' -
Eric Mularski
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures Section 404/401 Pre-Construction Notification Form
Agent Authorization Letter
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Matthews and Bakers USGS Quadrangles
Figure 3. NWI Wetlands and NRCS Soils
Figure 4a & 4b. Waters of the U.S. Impacts
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (Wetlands A and B)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms (Streams 1 - 3)
NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms (Streams 1 - 3)
Field Photographs
Agency Correspondance
Goldmine Road Relocation Phase II - Plan and Profile
(Sheets 1 of 8, 2 of 8, and 4 of 8)
Goldmine Road Relocation Phase II - Erosion and Sediment Control
Layout. (Sheets 1 of 8, 2 of 8, and 4 of 8)
cc: Mr. Brian Cole, Field Supervisor, United States Fish and Wildlife Service
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Goldmine Road Relocation
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: City of Monroe
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: HDR Engineering of the Carolinas
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s):
5. Site Address: Intersection of Airport and Sanford Roads, Union County
6. Subdivision Name:
7. City: Monroe
8. County: Union
9. Lat: 35.016263 Long: 80.30320 (Decimal Degrees Please )
10. Quadrangle Name: Matthews and Baker
11. Waterway: UT to Bearskin Creek & UT to East Fork of Twelve Mile Creek
12. Watershed: Catawba/Yadkin Pee Dee
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 14
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
Authorization: Section 10
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Section 404
Begin Date
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
Ou-i7 22
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing `7 ]?A`
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: NWP 14
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: ?
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: ?
H. Applicant Information R?n 11 \VJ v
1. Owner/Applicant Information !VOV 1 8 2008
Name: Chris Plate'
Mailing Address: City of Monroe DENh - NA, rER 0i)ALI1't
3900 Paul J. Helms Drive WETLANDS AND STORMWATER, BRANCH
Monroe. NC 28110
Telephone Number: 704-282-5780 Fax Number: 704-282-5788
E-mail Address: cplate monroenc.org
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: Eric Mularski
Company Affiliation: HDR Engineering of the Carolinas
Mailing Address: 128 S. Tryon
Suite 1400
Charlotte, NC
Telephone Number: 704-973-6878 Fax Number: 704-338-6760
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
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
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Goldmine Road Relocation-Phase II
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 09402005, 09402004C, 09372008
4. Location
County: Union Nearest Town: Monroe
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
From Charlotte take Old Monroe Road south through Indian Trial, NC. Turn right onto
Airport Road. Travel south on Airport Road to the intersection with Sanford Road. The new
relocation begins and proceeds northeast through Monroe Airport property to Goldmine
Road.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.016263 ON 80.30320 °W
6. Property size (acres): approximately 470
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Tributary to Bearskin Creek, UT to East Fork of
Twelve Mile Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba/Yadkin Pee Dee
(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.nc.us/admin/mgs/.)
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 general land use of the proposed project area is
residential, agricultural, and forested land.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This project involves the relocation of the existing Goldmine Road between Airport Road on
the west and Price Short Cut Road on the east (approximately 1 mile of relocation). This new
relocation segment will tie into the recently completed Goldmine Road Relocation-Phase I, at
the intersection of Goldmine Road and Airport Road. This project also involves the
relocation of Sanford Lane east of Airport Road to provide a new intersection with the
relocated Goldmine Road described above. It is anticipated that normal grading equipment
including, but not limited to, scrapers, motor graders, trackhoes/backhoes, compaction
equipment, dump trucks, and asphalt paving equipment for the roadway paving elements will
be used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:
The proposed road relocation will allow expansion of the Charlotte-Monroe Executive
Airport, provide the necessary access to industrial parcels being developed by the City of
Monroe and will include additional dedicated left turn lanes at the new Goldmine Road and
Airport Road intersection to better accommodate peak traffic volumes.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. (see attached Monroe Regional Airport - Runway Extension and
Associated Projects FONSI)
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 no permit request anticipated for this project
Page 3 of 9
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
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: Impacts will result from heavy
equipment accessing and excavating near the channel when building new roadway and
installing culverts to an ephemeral, an intermittent, and perennial streams.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Wetland A Excavation Emergent Abuts 0.06

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.06
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.10
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Page 4 of 9
Stream Impact
Perennial Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact ' Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on map) Intermittent
?
? Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
UT to East Fork of
Stream 2
Twelve Mile Creek Culvert Intermittent 4.0 feet 111 0.010
Tributary to
Stream 3
Bearskin Creek Culvert Perennial 10.0 feet 85.83 0.020

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 196.83 0.03
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, dred2iniz. flooding. drainage. bulkheads. etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Wetland B Excavation pond 0.01

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.01
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the oroiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.03
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.06
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.01
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.10
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 196.83
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 USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Page 5 of 9
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Goldmine Road relocation was aligned to all practical measures to avoid major impacts to
waters of the US. These measures included design features and construction techniques. Stream
impacts would further be minimized by the placement of appropriate sized culverts to maintain
historic stream flows.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Page 6 of 9
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.
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
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/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):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
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,
Page 7 of 9
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 0213.0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No F;J
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multialiers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone l 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.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B.0242 or.0244, or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. If applicable, measures to help reduce
stormwater pollution durin,; construction would consist of usinu traditional stormwater BMPs
that may include vegetative buffers grass swales catch basins energy dissipaters level
spreaders, and infiltration devices.
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Page 8 of 9
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (I 5A 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.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agen s ignature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
G ?;IQfP31?©5i=?l'E
MONROE
EMEC UTOVL: LaURG°PORIT
13 November 2008
Mr. Eric Mularski
Environmental Scientist
HDR Engineering of the Carolinas, Inc.
128 S. Tryon St., Suite 1400
Charlotte, NC 28202-5008
Re: Signatory Authority - Goldmine Road Relocation-Phase II
Environmental Permit
Dear Mr. Mularski:
This will confirm that the City of Monroe hereby grants limited signatory authority to you for the
environmental permit application needed for the above referenced project. You are authorized to
sign the permit application for submittal to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
consistent with the draft permit application that we have reviewed and approved for submittal.
Please note that any other permit applications requiring a signature by you will require a separate
signatory authority from the City of Monroe.
CinoorPh'
R. Christopher -Plate,
Director of Economic Development and Aviation
CC: Mr. Jim Loyd, City Engineer
Mr. Pat Turney, Talbert & Bright
Vicinity Map
F-` Figure 1
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
City of Monroe I Goldmine Road Relocation
Matthews and Bakers USGS Quadrangles
Fa q Figure 2
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
City of Monroe I Goldmine Road Relocation I Nationwide Permit 14
N M
y
� L
O 3
LL.
1
K

k

A ? ?"" xS'( bN MF ? ? ' Ln S '. C
fi
.
e
.r "`F a n C

?`7Ar'?-?' :-
p
gy

) 7'- !a~q

N
3 ?
a N
i -`.t

0L
N
N
w
I

r,
f ? ?4
.3
•
? r.
0
04
N
? r-
N
On
f ~ A
!x. esq. t

N i°
vs" v
R 7 gad
V'
4
,,- Z
V/
AD
^W ?
i ?
E
O O
L CD
4.0
o
U
S
.y
SC
S
z
N ?
0
?O
U
w
z
0
N?
L
EU.
v
m
a
S
N
.y
x
r
m
tt
0
z
.o
u
m
z
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Goldmine Road Relocation Date: 03/24/08
Applicant/Owner: City of Monroe County: Union
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski 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: WA
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Jucuseffusus Stratum Indicator
herb FACW+ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Polygonum pensylvanicum herb FACW 10
3 Polygonum persicaria herb FACW 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
No wood s ecies are resent
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
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 6 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
H drolo indicators are resent
Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 1 of 2 9/8/2008
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cid channery silt loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Drainage Class somewhat poorly
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic A uic Ha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? es No
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12+ A 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/5 many/faint silty clay 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
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soil are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Emer ent wetland that abuts an ephemeral channel.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 2 of 2 9/8/2008
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Goldmine Road Relocation Date: 03/24/08
Applicant/Owner: City of Monroe County: Union
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski 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: WB
If needed, explain on reverse.) I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Jucus effusus Stratum Indicator
herb FACW+ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Polygonum pensylvanicum herb FACW 10
3 Saururus cernus herb OBL 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
More than 50% of the dominant
plant species present 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:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 6-18 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 1 of 2 9/8/2008
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cid channery silt loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Drainage Class somewhat poorly
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic A uic Ha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12+ A IOYR 4/1 10YR 4/5 many/faint silty clay 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
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Open water wetland
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 2 of 2 9/8/2008
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Goldmine Road Relocation Date: 03/24/08
Applicant/Owner: City of Monroe County: Union
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: u land
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: UPl
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Fescue spp. herb Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 10
3 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
50%
Remarks:
Old tn)astur
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: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland h drolo
11 are resent.
1
Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 1 of 2 9/8/2008
Snll R
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cid channery silt loam, 2 to 8 % slopes Drainage Class somewhat poorly
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic A uic Ha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? es No
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 A 10YR 5/5 N/A N/A silty clay
12+ E 10YR 6/6 N/A N/A silty clay
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.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes RNo (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data oint is representative of a non-Wrisdictional upland area for Wetlands A & B.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 2 of 2 9/8/2008
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):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Monroe Airport Improvements - Goldmine Road Relocation
Steam 1, Wetland A
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Union City: Monroe
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.008° Pick I;ist, Long. -80.636° Pict Kist.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Unnamed tributary to East Fork of Twelve Mile Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Lower Catawba - 03050103
® 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: March 2008
® Field Determination. Date(s): 3/24/2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "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]
? 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):'
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
? Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
El 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: 249 linear feet: 2 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.06 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OUNNAl.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
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.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.I. 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 III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. 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 III.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 III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 88.97square miles
Drainage area: 14 acres
Average annual rainfall: 43 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 15-20 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: Unnamed tributary flows to the East Branch of Twelve Mile Creek, to Twelve Mile Creek
then into the Catawba River, a TNW.
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
Tributary stream order, if known: 1 st.
(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: 2 feet
Average depth: 0.5 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ® Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: low stable banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexez. Explain: Riffle/pool complexes are sparse.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0-2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Intermittent but not seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: Flashy system during storm events.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation 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: water color is clear, headwater tributary to the East Branch of Twelve Mile Creek, watershed is mostly
agricultural, residential with some forested areas. .
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): fallow fields .
? 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:0.06 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Emergent.
Wetland quality. Explain: fair.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 15-20 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 10 - 20-year 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: no surface water was present at the time of the delineation, this region is in drought
conditions.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):fallow fields .
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
® 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:
Approximately ( 0.06 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus 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
TN Ws, 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:
1. 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: Wetlands are biologically and hydrologically contiguious with non-RPW.
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:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? 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:
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: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss 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:
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:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB 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: 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.
6. 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: 0.06 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):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
[[ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
?[ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.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
and 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:
? 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:Matthews 24K Quadrangle.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Union County.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI GIS Data.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Union County - Orthos, 2004.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Site photos taken during delineation.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
El Other information (please specify):Field delineation.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
IF .
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section W of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Monroe Airport Improvements - Goldmine Road Relocation
Steam 2, Wetland B
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Union City: Matthews
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.007° Pick List. Long. -80.633` Pick List.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Unnamed tributary to East Fork of Twelve Mile Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Lower Catawba - 03050103
® 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: March 2008
® Field Determination. Date(s): 3/24/2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "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]
? 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 US." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Requires]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 111 linear feet: 4 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.01 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
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.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
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 III.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 III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. 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 III.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 waterbody4 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 III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 88.97 square miles
Drainage area: 100 acres
Average annual rainfall: 43 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 15-20 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 20-25 serial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: Unnamed tributary flows to the East Branch of Twelve Mile Creek, to Twelve Mile Creek
then into the Catawba River, a TNW.
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

Tributary stream order, if known: 1 st.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: old pastureland.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 4 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes:,1J.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ® Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: low stable banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Riffle/pool complexes are present.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0-2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 11-20
Describe flow regime: Flashy system during storm events.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: UnknoNvii. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: water color is clear, headwater tributary to the East Fork of Twelve Mile Creek, watershed is mostly
agricultural, residential with some forested areas. .
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.
I
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): fallow fields .
? 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 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Emergent, open water.
Wetland quality. Explain: fair.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 20-25 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 10 - 20-year 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: water is slightly turbid.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):fallow fields .
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
® 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: 1
Approximately ( 0.01 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
r `
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres)
Wetland B - Y 0.01
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
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:
1. 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:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? 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:
ED 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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Our site visit indicated that the channel exhibited the essential hydrological, geomorphic, and biological indicators
to receive at least an intermittent classification.
v
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss 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:
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: acres.
5. 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: 0.01 acres.
6. 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.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY);10
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
I •
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).
? 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.
n 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).
[t Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.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
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
E 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:
? 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: Bakers 24K Quadrangle.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Union County.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI GIS Data.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Union County - Orthos, 2004.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Site photos taken during delineation.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Z Other information (please specify): Field delineation.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
f
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):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Monroe Airport Improvements - Goldmine Road Relocation
Steam 3
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Union City: Monroe
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.008° Pick List. Long. -80.636° Pick List.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Unnamed tributary to Bearskin Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TN W) into which the aquatic resource flows: Rocky River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Rocky River - 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: March 2008
Field Determination. Date(s): 3/24/2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "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]
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): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters: (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 86 linear feet: 10 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHNN M.
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.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
R
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 III.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 III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. 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 III.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 III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: square miles
Drainage area: acres
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:
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s 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.
r `
(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: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
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: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime: Flashy system during storm events.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
© High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(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: acres
Wetland type. Explain: .
Wetland quality. Explain:.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List 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:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):fallow fields .
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? 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: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
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:
1. 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 IILD:
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 IILD: Wetlands are biologically and hydrologically contiguious with non-RPW.
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 IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Our site visit indicated that the channel exhibited the essential hydrological, geomorphic, and biological
indicators to receive at a perennial classification.
Q 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: linear feet 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:
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:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 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: acres.
5. 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.
6. 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.
Q 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):'o
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
?' Other factors. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.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
and 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:
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: Bakers 24K Quadrangle.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Union County.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI GIS Data.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Union County - Orthos, 2004.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Site photos taken during delineation.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify): Field delineation.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
USACE A[D4 DWQ # Site Stream # 1 (indicate on att ched
FE ,?,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Monroe 2. Evaluator's name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of evaluation: 3/24/2008 4. Time of evaluation: 12:00 pm
5. Name of stream: Unnamed tributary 6. River basin: Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 14 acres 8. Stream order: 1st
9. Length of reach evaluated: 249 If 10. County: Union
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.008 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -80.636
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Field survey
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identi tng stream(s) location):
Corner of Airport Road and Sanford Road (see attached man)
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunnv 70's
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny 50's
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed ([-[V)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES QO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 15 % Residential _% Commercial 35 % Industrial 25 % Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged 25 % Other (Airport
)
22. Bankfull width: 2 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6 inches
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: X Straight 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): 30 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature VU 777 - - Date 3/24/2008
This channel evaluation orm is inten ed 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION"POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
l
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 0
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
l
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
,a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
..,
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2 ,
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 4
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 3
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *
NA
0-4
0-5
0
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
?., (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
E-? no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
5
0
0-4
0-5
1
15 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) -
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
1
dee I embedded = 0; loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0
4 0-5 0-5 1
20 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) -

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
Q no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) Y 30
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site: Stream #2 (indicate on att?
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Monroe 2. Evaluator's name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of evaluation: 3/24/2008 4. Time of evaluation: 1:00 om
5. Name of stream: Unnamed tributary East Fork 12 Mile 6. River basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate drainage area: 100 acres S. Stream order: 2nd
9. Length of reach evaluated: I I I If 10. County: Union
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.01 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -80.622
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Field survey
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identi mg stream(s) location)
Sanford Road (see attached man)
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunnv 70's
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny 50's
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? ES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.70 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial % Industrial _ % Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged 100 % Other (Aimort, old pasture )
22. Bankfull width: -3 - 4 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6 -12 inches
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: X Straight 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): 39 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 3/24/2008
This channel evaluation m is in ended to b only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCOR
# CHARACTERISTICS E
Coastal `Piedmont lYIountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
1
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 l
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
4
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- Z 3
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
l
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
3
y+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
C? 14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
.f Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
15 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
16 no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
r
?
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
18 no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints

19 Substrate embeddedness
A*
0-4
0-4
1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
20 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
, Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
3 (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
- TotatPointsPossiblo.:. too l00.
TOTAL' SCORE (also enter on first page) 39
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site: Stream 3 indicate on attached
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Monroe 2. Evaluator's name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of evaluation: 3/24/2008
5. Name of stream: Unnamed tributary to Bearskin Creek
7. Approximate drainage area: 72 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 86 If
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
4. Time of evaluation: 2:00 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order: 2nd
10. County: Union
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.01 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -80.622
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Field survey
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identi mg stream(s) location):
Corner of Goldmine road and Price Short Cut Road(see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny 70's
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny 50's
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed ([-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? ES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.129
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? Q NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 0 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 % Residential 15 % Commercial _ % Industrial 40 % Agricultural
_35% Forested % Cleared/ Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: X Straight 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): 42 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature I nip-' 1JU lAJA--" Date 3/24/2008
This channel evaluation orm is 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

I A
R ECOREG ION POINT RANGE,
SCORE
x; CTERISTICS ,
C
A Coastal " "Pied monf. 1?Ioiuntairt,, -

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 l
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
d no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Z 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
:- extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NIA
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints

13 Presence of major bank failures

i
k
=
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
max po
nts)
s
.severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable ban
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
? no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints
?
? Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 l
15 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
no riffles/riles or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
4 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
?• little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
1 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
8 no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
a
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
2 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
0 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 I
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
23 no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Iota[ Points l'os5?ble ",_ 00
1x ?,_} l0fl r7" ?? r?Y 11QP .
,
SORE lso enteron ttrst P&e)
::SN7i,f .. w _
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 03/24/2008 Project: Goldmine Road Latitude: 35.008 I
Evaluator:Eric Mularski Site: Stream #1 Longitude: _80.636
Total Points: other Matthews
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if? 19 or perennial if a 30 18.501 Union e.g. Quad Nam:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10.5--) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 1.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1.0
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0
0 1
1 2
2 3
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 4.5 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 0.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 3.50 )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 1.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 2.0
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 0
0 1
0.5 2
1 3
1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed 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, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 03/24/2008 Project: Goldmine Road Latitude: 35.007
Evaluator:Eric Mularski Site: Stream #2 Longitude: _80.633
Total Points: Other Matthews
Stream is at feast intermittent County:
if? 19 or perennial if>_ 30 20.0 Union e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10.5--) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 1.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1.0
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0
0 1
1 2
2 3
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
"Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal= 4.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 0.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biolociv (Subtotal= 5.00 )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 1.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1.0
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 1.0 0
0 1
0.5 2
1 3
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Rerns cu gnu L 1 IMUS On Ene presence or upiana prams, item za rocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional n otes.)
Channel runs through old pasture - no riparian buffer
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 03/24/2008 Project: Goldmine Road Latitude: 35.01
Evaluator:Eric Mularski Site: Stream #3 Longitude: _80.622
Total Points: Other Bakers
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if? 19 or perennial if a 30 .36.501 Union e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 18.0_) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3,0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1.0
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2.0 0
0 1
1 2
2 3
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 2.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
man-maae ancnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in man uai
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 9.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or rowin season 3.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorph ic features) present? No = 0 Yes= 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 9.00 )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1.0
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 0
0 1
0.5 2
1 3
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
110110 LV CUIU L 1 H.A:UJ VII LI10 pleJClll:e UI UpldnU planl5, Item La TOCU$eS on the presence of aquatic or wetlantl plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Channelized - disturbed buffer
t V d ? Oal
R 6.1 ,6? y??gT ' tt %
ex .
h
'atl d
S f ,, s i ap` I,.,
a vH sr '`, ? z
« @`? a 9? r wit
0
?4r X31. ?..1 ? n ?. 0~3a^=???
.. r' r_ 'in A s z#
W'd
a' t ww
I.Z
g. 75
M1
r !1 A ::?-?,,
't f
i^3r
.l ? ?` yr
'tIw
A r$ <
a
1 ?
3?r
t.i zs
M d
j, U
{/ 4 "yTl;..:Y
d 4
Al
1 ia4 4 1 c ?p,r?l
1 ,
gy7 'R rt •? 1?} r
?? ?M1$ a' s Y??
p M1
NA, ot V,
S tA? x ?F?` v t ?? ?t
il di -A
?i .?I1ai S;s ,1??
ONE COMPANY Many Solutions- . '? a 1rA
Im.
Field Photographs
Relocation I Nationwide Permit #l4
W III
?-?",s'-?r.????
yt:,
h _
d i kyS q +j' ',4£.i
Stream 2
,
y z?'"mac
, it
C r f ? ??
..,._ " s r
s7t ?` y • y vi •
_AVIV
Wettand B
fm,
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions- Field Photographs
City oFMonroe I Monroe Aii oit Improvements - Goldmine Road Relocation I Nationwide Pennit 414
w?y '
`,: lRy''c? },? = , ?4bS ev. ?'{ •+ ;cal,'
LwL ?{ ft ' :? k }rtlEl/ d °?!?, 1,
!°? "?'7j i a. aG ? ?: Rl: w ! r ? S ?'", •? ?d? x? a?k ?;,C.
tit 4 t: '1x, '+C " S- ~? ?•', `• r t y her ?`;,? 9
liv
44
01-
Al.
tiF, !1?s "s Y.r? L y .t 4A
Stream 3
q?
uSX`c ' 3 ?`IA ';rt ?I
?.;j,3b.O ?T I ash 1: t iAT? ?.^ x` ' 3t k? i r j ww ? A + r
P r I y 2`•' 'f.\4??4q* /? \ S ` 1 ?). X IF7?4 `a
i?+ t!•\?, ?C 5 :'a4, o:,+`sR ,??y?%'?; y° w?
A w..:
?S aS' ?,i u+> ^S? '???1 ? '"lyr'?r ,,?± ,i• ?!'?4 y???(Y?r*`•! i'z 44}'"?f r,? ?? ? 7t,'t.
Ap r',
n f? 3$J' x
pa k yh
??,? :?,°Ea '? ,. Sri ?? xx,1 h? ¢ ?„ ? ? ???. ?
40
Stream 3
19.1
ONE COMPANY Many Solutions- Field Photographs
City of Monroe Monroe Airport hnprovements - Goldmine Road Relocation I Nationwide Permit 4 14
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
September 30, 2008
Mr. Eric Mularski, Environmental Scientist
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
128 S. Tryon Street, Suite 1400
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-5004
Dear Mr. Mularski:
Subject: Goldmine Road Relocation, Monroe, Union County, North Carolina
We received your letter dated September 10, 2008, in which you requested our comments on the
subject project. We, previously commented on this project (as part of the overall improvement to
the Monroe Municipal. Airport) in letters dated January 3.1, 2002; February 5, 2002; and
October 16, 2002, to, The LPA Group ,Incorporated. A Finding of No Significant'Inipact
(FONSI) was, issued by the North Carolina Department of Transportation on April 8 2004. The
following comments are provided in.accordance with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e); Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703); and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
As with our earlier comments, our principal concern with the road relocation is the impacts to
project area streams and wetlands. In our letter of October 12, 2002, in response to the draft
Environmental Assessment (EA), we stated:
We are pleased that the City of Monroe intends to mitigate for the wetland
impacts associated with the subject project, and we are encouraged by the general
mitigation ideas put forth in the draft EA. However, until a specific site is chosen
for mitigation and a mitigation plan is developed, we are not able to comment as
to whether the mitigation is adequate. We do, however, recommend that
mitigation for any unavoidable impacts should include the restoration of impaired
stream channels at a ratio of at least 2:1 and that the mitigation be initiated prior
to, or concurrent with, construction of the project. A monitoring plan should be
included in, the restoration plan.
The following are additional mitigation recommendations:
grasses, and rushes, as wood.
1. Riparian vegetation should include sedges, g leucothoe, and dog
species such as alder (Alnus spP•), material. Large woody
native woody systems
Exotic vegetation sh hedrnbial cscreened from any over and deep l u bank-stabilizing root species will provide t
along the restored stream channel,
plan, stream
If channel construction is included as part ; the
pool lope, valley slope,
2
design should mimic slope, riffle reference
channel ,
et , sinuosity, cross-sectional dime ns a nearby cere ratio
meander geom rY full discharge of
unt), and bank- en 1996). We would
bed material (Pebble co lassification s
reach of stable stream of the same c stream channel and wetland creation
like to review t final mitigation-
portion of the proposed
following channel
should continue for at least 5 years agencies.
3. Monitoring
problems submitted to with the success resource or function of
construction. Annual reports should be submitted
Resource agencies should be notified the stream or wetland mitigation within 30 days of detection.
to the deed
regional conservation organization shoulderoad title easement
4. An appropriate The title to the o
restrictions on the mitigationtsritansendowment for future monitoring,
should be conveyed alo og with contingencies to ensure success of the mitigation.
management, and any
project should require an easement on all on-site an
5 Any permit for this relocated streams) and
undisturbed stream cher of at least1I00 feet preferably 200 feet (Alliven the existing or
adequate riparian buff requirements of these systems) am
topography, relief, and thermal erts should allow for the adequate, safe, and efficient upstre and
cult' of aquatic life.
downstream passage
our comments or mitigation recommence ail than the EA'SI, receive a response to We did not 2004, did not address the impacts or mitigation with any more
issued i
simply stating: jurisdictional wetlands
extension would have no impacts to The proposed runway act a rand the relocation of Goldmine Road would only impG oldmine
alignment 0.004 acres of of intermittent stream 80 linear feet). Because of the locati
the existing runway and the need to relocate a section of
2
Road, total avoidance of the un-named intermittent stream is not possible.
However, the proposed Goldmine Road relocation was realigned to practicable
[sic] avoid impacting 0.09 acres of freshwater marsh wetlands located adjacent to
the intermittent stream, near Sanford Lane.
Where waters of the United States could not be avoided, practicable measures
were taken to minimize impacts. These measures included design features and
construction techniques. Where possible, and where consistent with engineering
standards and FAA safety standards, consideration was given to design
modifications and features to reduce potential impacts. In addition to avoiding
wetland impacts, shifting the proposed relocated section of Goldmine Road to the
north reduced impacts to the intermittent stream from approximately 0.01 acres
(93 linear feet) to approximately 0.004 acres (80 linear feet). Stream impacts
would further be minimized by the placement of appropriately sized culvert pipes
to maintain historic stream flows.
During the development of final design plans for the proposed construction (to the
extent practicable) all efforts will be made to reduce impacts to wetlands areas
and all applicable permits will be applied for prior to any construction activity.
There are not any anticipated problems with obtaining these permits, and based on
the information contained in the EA, it is anticipated that the potential wetland
and water quality impacts will be able to be avoided or mitigated and therefore not
of a significant nature to prevent this development option.
As detailed in the preceding paragraphs, the FONSI is not specific as to what mitigation will be
implemented. Further, the information provided with your letter indicates two streams will be
impacted (Bearskin Creek on the eastern end of the project and an unnamed tributary to
Twelvemile Creek in the central-western part of the project area). A detailed account of the
expected impacts and the proposed mitigation needs to be completed.
Federally Listed Species
We again concur with the determination that this project will not have any effect on federally
listed species. Therefore, the requirements under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed. or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
3
Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229, if you
have any questions regarding our comments. We have assigned our Log No. 4-2-02-121 to this
project; please refer to it in all future correspondence directed to us concerning this matter.
Si erely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
4
?.s STA7g o
Ci+w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter A. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
October 14, 2008
Eric Mularski
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
128 South Tryon Street
Suite 1400
Charlotte, NC 28202-5004
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Monroe Airport Improvements - Goldmine Road Relocation, Union County, ER 08-2176
Dear Mr. Mularski:
Thank you for your letter of September 10, 2008, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware bf no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
eter Sandbeck
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599