20120412 Ver 1_401 Application_20120412

K
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Pk WDICKSON
community Infrastructure consultants
720 Corporate Center Drive Raleigh North Carolina 27607 919 782 0495 tel [phone] fax
TO North Carolina Division of Water
Quality
610 East Center Avenue
Mooresville NC 28115
ATTENTION Mr Alan Johnson
2012 ®412
DATE 4 18 12
RE Wiseman Design CIP
WKD # 20100223 00 RA A
We are sending via
® Overnight UPS
❑ Regular Mail
❑ Pick up
❑ Hand Delivered
The following items
❑ Correspondence
❑ Plans
❑ Specifications
® Other as listed below
COPIES
DATE
NO
DESCRIPTION
5
4/17/2012
1
Final PCN and JD Request
5
4/17/2012
2
Wiseman 1/2 size preliminary plans RECEIVED
1
4/17/12
3
Wiseman full size preliminary plans
APR 19 201
C,
_
MOORESVILLE RECIONIA
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below
❑ For Approval ❑ As Requested ❑ Approved as Submitted ❑ Returned for Corrections
® For Your Use ❑ For Review and Comment ❑ Approved as Noted ❑ Forward to Subcontractor
REMARKS
COPY TO 20100223 00 RA A
SIGNED
Rob N15rmandy
IALITY
OFFICE

- Nk YY
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL WDICKSON
community Infrastructure consultants
720 Corporate Center Drive Raleigh North Carolina 27607 919 782 0495 tel [phone] fax
2012®412
TO North Carolina Division of Water DATE 4 18 12
Quality
610 East Center Avenue
Mooresville NC 28115
ATTENTION Mr Alan Johnson
RE Wiseman Design CIP a
WKD # 20100223 00 RA A II
b
We are sending via ® Overnight UPS ❑ Regular Mail ❑ Pick up ❑ Hand delivered
The following items ❑ Correspondence ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ® Other as listed bRECLiifD
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
COPIES
DATE
NO
DESCRIPTION APR 19
5
4/17/2012
1
Final PCN and JD Request
5
4/17/2012
2
Cp
Wiseman 1/2 size preliminary plans MOORESVLLE R &ti
1
4/17/12
3
Wiseman full size preliminary plan
110)[9
DENR
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below
❑ For Approval ❑ As Requested
❑ Approved as Submitted
® For Your Use ❑ For Review and Comment ❑ Approved as Noted
REMARKS
Returned for Corrections
Fop lard to Subcontractor
2012
ON
TONAL OFFICE
1
�U I
L �
COPY TO 20100223 00 RA A SIGNED i P
U` 5
Rob N rmandy
1

XA/I<
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
April 17 2012
Alan Johnson
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue
Mooresville NC 28115
RECEIVED
DIVISION 01 W _ -QUALITY
APR 1 � 2012
SN,jI d v t IuN
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
PCN and JD Request for
Wiseman Storm Drainage Improvements in Charlotte, NC
Dear Mr Johnson
Attached to this letter are PCN Form Project Narrative Project Figures Jurisdictional Determination
Request and Project Plans for the Wiseman Storm Drainage Improvement Project in Charlotte NC
Based upon our site visits the project qualifies for a 404 Nationwide Permits 3 and 13 and 401
General Certification 3705
The proposed project will alleviate roadway and residential flooding in Wiseman drainage area The
proposed closed stormwater systems will convey the 100 year storm event with no residential finished
floor flooding Impacts to jurisdictional waters include 140 linear feet of excavation and hard
stabilization of channel Additionally approximately 896 linear feet of temporary impacts include
using riffle grade control structures in place of rip rap aprons for scour protection temporary stream
crossings temporary rock check dams and channel bank stabilization Mitigative measures include
bank stabilization impact minimization and erosion control measures
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this PCN submittal (dingram @wkdickson com)
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important flood control project
Sincerely
W K Dicksonnn& Co , Inc
Daniel Ingram
Project Scientist
cc Amanda Jones US Army Corps of Engineers
Monica Kruckow Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Project Manager
Isaac Hinson PWS Charlotte Mecklenburg Wetland Specialist
Scott Sigmon PE WK Dickson Project Manager
File 20100223 00 RA
"0 Corporate U ntI r Dm,(
R ih q h N( 2'60,
1( 1 919 -82 049
FiY919- 8296'2
em v» "kdi(k4on (om
1r zn ,,port itlon G% ilei R(sWr((,, L,I b in De,( lopm( nt C( 0111 )t I(,

Djl SION RECEivzf)
'� E_R QUALITY
Ar q 19 2012
e'UIOORE„ td i��� , i lt't4
�Lr R'EUICIgAL OFFICE
WISEMAN STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PRE - CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION
NATIONWIDE PERMITS 3 & 13
and
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION REPORT
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WWK
U kou[N
community infrastructure consultants
Prepared For
City of Charlotte
400 E Fourth Street
Charlotte NC 28202
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Prepared by
WK Dickson & Company Inc
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
April 2012
Charkne- *cklenburg
�STORM
VVtilL-1 D
Services U

OIViSICOI Ot e; IVLD
�R QUALIFY
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet APR 1 g LJ'2
MOOREOVILLE t`EvIONAL OFFICE
Please provide the following info
I Project Name Wiseman Storm Water Improvement Project
2 Name of Property Owner /Applicant Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
3 Name of Consultant/Agent WK Dickson / Daniel Ingram
Agent authonzation needs to be attached
4 Related/Previous Action ID number(s) N/A
5 Site Address 3900 Coleman Drive Charlotte NC 28215
7 City Charlotte
8 County Mecklenburg
9 Lat 351766 Long -80 7197 (Decimal Degrees Please
10 Quadrangle Name Mint Hill
11 Waterway Unnamed Tnbutary to McAlpine Creek
12 Watershed _Catawba HUC 03050103)
13 Requested Action
X Nationwide Permit # 3 &13
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request APR 2 4 2012
Pre Application Request DENR
lMetiands 8 ���� OU,aUTY
The following information will be completed by the Corps office
AID
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM
Authorization Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose
Site/Waters Name
Keywords
Begin Date

o`'o� W A r�9�c
A I
o -c
2C -x`412
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 13 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Nohficahon PC Form
A Applicant Information
1
Processing
L-
1 a
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 3 and 13 or General Permit (GP) number
1 c
Has the NWP or GP number been venfied by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ® No
1f
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in lieu
fee program
❑ Yes
® No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC s twenty coastal counties If yes answer 1 h
below
❑ Yes
® No
1h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Wiseman Storm Water Improvement Project
2b
County
Mecklenburg 100 r,
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Charlotte
2d
Subdivision name
N/A
T-WATER
2e
NCDOT only T I P or state
protect no
N/A
DEN3
Owner Information nch
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
see attached sheet
3b
Deed Book and Page No
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
3d
Street address
3e
City state zip
3f
Telephone no
3g
Fax no
3h
Email address
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
❑ Agent ® Other specify
4b
Name
Isaac Hinson Wetland Specialist
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
Chatlotte Mecklenburg Stormwater Services
4d
Street address
600 East Forth Street
4e
City state zip
Charlotte NC 28202 2844
4f
Telephone no
704 336 -4495
4g
Fax no
704 353 0473
4h
Email address
inhinson @a charlotte nc us
5
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Daniel Ingram
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
WK Dickson & Co Inc
5c
Street address
720 Corporate Center Drive
5d
City state zip
Raleigh NC 27607
5e
Telephone no
919 - 782 -0495
5f
Fax no
919 -782 9672
5g
Email address
dingram @wkdickson com
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

B
Project Information and Prior Project History
1
Property Identification
1 a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
see attached Tax ID table
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 351766 Longitude 807197
(DD DDDDDD) ( DD DDDDDD)
1 c
Property size
30 809 acres
2
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream river etc ) to
proposed project
Uts to McAlpine Creek
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
C
2c
River basin
Catawba (HUC 03050103020050)
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

3
Project Description
3a
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
The Wiseman watershed lies in the southeastern portion of the City of Charlotte above its confluence with McAlpine
Creek (Figure 1) The watershed extends northwest from the mouth of Wiseman Tributary located along McAlpine Creek
150 feet upstream of Idlewild Road The watersheds southwest border includes Idlewdd Road and East WT Hams
Boulevard The watershed drainage area is 0 24 square miles (151 acres) and the impervious area is 61 5 acres (41 %)
Most of the watersheds land use is residential The western portion of the watershed has several large undeveloped
properties and a lower percentage of impervious surface compared to the rest of the watershed The project is located
primarily on private property and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods A jurisdictional RPW flows southeast from
the origin of the Wiseman Tributary to the confluence of the stream with McAlpine Creek The open stream components
of the project in which the stream impacts lie has been broken down into 7 reaches and are divided by the closed system
components of the project (Figure 2) The reaches are described in detail in an attached document
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
00
3c
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
2 600
3d
Explain the purpose of the proposed project
Based on an existing conditions analysis performed by WK Dickson in 2009 several components of the storm drainage
infrastructure do not conform to the City of Charlotte s design requirements as outlined in the Charlotte Mecklenburg
Storm Water Design Manual Additionaly several reaches have eroded or contain unstable stream banks The proposed
project will reduce flooding improve the condition of drainage infrastructure and provide enhancement of the Unnamed
Tributary to McAlpine Creek by preserving stabilizing and enhancing the physical chemical and biological integrity of the
stream After the proposed improvements are implemented the stream will be consistent with practices outlined in the
Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Design Manual Both the hard and soft bank stabilization proposed in this project
are necessary to prevent further erosion and therefore prevent the potential future loss of property and /or structures The
closed system (culvert) replacements and improvements will provide additional capacity to limit residential and roadway
flooding
3e
Describe the overall project in detail including the type of equipment to be used
The proposed project will modify both closed and open systems of the stream so that it will be consistent with practices
outlined in the Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Design Manual and will be enhanced to further stabilize the stream
The proposed project will achieve these goals with the following solutions
Pipe system replacement to correct capacity
Maintenance of existing nprap features
Stabilization of stream beds and banks through the installation of riprap retaining walls and grade control structures
Soft stabilization of stream banks through grading matting and planting of native plant species on stream banks
Repair and modification of the Wiseman Tributary will require limited grading and earthwork below USACE /DWQ
jurisdictional Ordinary High Water Marks (OHWM) With the exception of several temporary bridges which will be
necessary for construction equipment (back hoes and bulldozers) access none of the projects soft bank stabilization
components will result in disturbance (cut or fill) below the OHWM In all construction areas appropriate erosion and
sedimentation control practices will be used to avoid and /or minimize temporary water quality impacts
4
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the pasty
E] Yes No El Unknown
Comments
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination what type
El Preliminary E] Final
of determination was made
4c
If yes who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company
Name (if known)
Other
4d
If yes list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

5 Project History
5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b If yes explain in detail according to help file instructions
6 Future Project Plans
6a Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes explain
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
I Impacts Summary
la Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑ Wetlands ® Streams tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
za
1D
zc
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
Type of jurisdiction
this
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps 404 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
3c
(if known)
3e
DWQ — non -404 other)
(acres)
Temporary T
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
number
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
(Corps 404 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
❑ No
❑ DWQ
intermittent
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
width
(linear
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g Total wetland impacts
2h Comments No wetlands are present in the project area
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3 Stream Impacts
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site then complete
this
question for all stream sites impacted
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
(PER) or
(Corps 404 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
intermittent
DWQ — non -404
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑P ❑T PER I ❑Corps
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ INT
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ INT
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ INT
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ INT
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ INT
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
31 Comments See attached impact table C 3
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4 Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes ponds estuaries tributaries sounds the Atlantic Ocean or any other open water of
he U S then individually list all open water impacts below
4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f Total open water impacts
4g Comments No open waters are present in the project area
5 Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed then complete the chart below
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f Total
z)g Comments No ponds are present in the
project area
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
6 Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer then complete the chart below If yes then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar Pamlico ❑ Other
Project is in which protected basin?
® Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
61 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
0
0
61 Comments There are no regulated stream buffers in the project area
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

D Impact Justification and Mitigation
1 Avoidance and Minimization
'Ia Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Soft stabilization practices including installation of grade control structures live staking coir matting installation and container
plantings will be used throughout the project Traditional Rip -rap scour protection will be replaced with nffle grade controls to
allow for a more natural channel botttom while still providing scour protction at pipe outfails Riffle grade control consists of a
stone scour protection pad at outfalls that is one foot below the natural channel bottom and backfilled with natural channel
material All erosion control measures will be placed in accordance with the Erosion Control Regulations Local storm water
and erosion control regulations will be followed on the project site
The proposed stream modifications are necessary because of flooding and significant erosion of the streams banks No other
alternatives were considered due to the existing footprint of the closed systems and the highly developed watershed
The proposed modifications to the existing channel are unavoidable due to flooding of residential yards and roadways
throughout the watershed Erosion problems along the channel beds and banks are severe in several locations and negatively
impact both the biological and habitat function of the stream as well as downstream watersheds As a result it is necessary to
make critical changes to reduce erosion and better equip the stream to handle larger flow events without flooding adjacent
properties Hard stabilization has been avoided wherever possible and culvert footprints have not been lengthened Hard
stabilization of Reach 6 incorporates planted benches and pool habitat to increase channel shading and bedform diversity
This approach will result in a net improvement over current degraded conditions
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
Stream impacts have been reduced by minimizing the size of the project area and with construction techniques However the
impacts detailed below are unavoidable because some of the construction must take place below the OHWM to achieve the
necessary improvements No closed systems on jurisdictional streams have been lengthened Installation of rip rap and
grade control structures below OHWMs are limited in placement and size to the minimum necessary to ensure channel
stability Also to avoid permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters existing channel substrates will be restored following
construction at all locations except in Reach 6 s hard stabilization
The disturbed area for the proposed improvements will require the project to have and Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Permit from NCDENR Division of Land Resources The project will conform to the requirements of the North Carolina Erosion
Control Manual and shall practice all erosion and sedimentation control measures as required by the specific geography of the
project Maintaining erosion control measures throughout construction is imperative to avoid impacting McAlpine Creek which
is directly downstream of the project
2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
2b If yes mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c If yes which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in lieu fee program
projects
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3 Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

3c Comments Mitigation should not be required because the only permanent impact (Reach 6) will be below the 150 linear
foot mitigation threshold Because the proposed project will reduce a significant amount of erosion and sedimentation there
null be a net benefit in water quality aquatic habitat and channel stability Soft stabilization techniques have been
incorporated wherever possible
4 Complete if Making a Payment to In lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation stream temperature
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h Comments
5 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
6 Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
15
6f Total buffer mitigation required
6g If buffer mitigation is required discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g payment to private mitigation bank
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration payment into an approved in lieu fee fund)
6h Comments The Catawba Buffer Rules only apply to the Catawba River's main stem below Lake James and along the
mamstem lakes in the Catawba River Basin Because this site is not along the mainstem Catawba River or any of the
lakes in the basin the Catawba River Buffers do not apply
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

E
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
lb
If yes then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no explain why
❑ Yes El No
Comments
2
Stormwater Management Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan explain why This project is not generating new
impervious surface
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan then provide a brief narrative description of the plan
❑ Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
)a
In which local government s jurisdiction is this project?
Charlotte Mecklenburg
❑ Phase II
3b
Which of the following locally implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a
Which of the following state implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 246
❑ Other
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ® No
5
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

F Supplementary Information
1 Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state/local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b If you answered yes to the above does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c If you answered yes to the above has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter )
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments
2 Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500) Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300) DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b Is this an after the fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c If you answered yes to one or both of the above questions provide an explanation of the violation(s)
3 Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b If you answered yes to the above submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered no provide a short narrative description
The proposed stormwater improvements are intended to correct current deficiencies and will not provide additional
stormwater capacity for future development
4 Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project or available capacity of the subject facility
NA
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c If yes indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
❑ Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat
NC National Heritage Program online database field investigations USFWS county species list
6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitats
❑ Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission online database
7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e g National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC State Historic Preservation Office online database and NRHP database
8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA designated 100 year floodplain'
❑ Yes ® No
8b If yes explain how project meets FEMA requirements Only southern most corner of the project is within the 100 year
floodplain no improvements are proposed in the FEMA designnted 100 year floodplain
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA flood mapping data as obtained from
www ncfloodmaps com
Z5 a« rS�•.
\
ik�
I
L( 3 1 l Z
Applicant/Agents Printed Name
Appllcant/Agents Signature
Date
(Agent s signature is valid only d an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

PCN Supporting Documentation
Wiseman Storm Water Improvement Project
Nationwide Permits 3 and 13
Pre - Construction Notification
PCN Section B 3a Existing Conditions
Reach 1 Seasonal RPW
Reach 1 the most upstream reach originates at a storm water conveyance outfall in a forested
residential area and flows south for a distance of 403 feet This reach is intermittent and has a
drainage area of 0 022 square miles (14 1 acres) The reach enters a pipe system at the northwest
corner of the 4407 Sheldon Court property From there the stream system is conveyed 720 feet
underground beneath Mission Hills Road and Morington Lane to an outfall at the southeast corner
of the 4304 Morington Lane property
The majority of Reach 1 is laterally and vertically stable due to low bank angles and bank toe
protection provided by root mass The section that flows through 4413 Shelden Court is unstable
due to a steeper left bank and lack of riparian buffer and toe protection Reach 1 lacks bedform
diversity throughout with mostly "riffle" habitat present
Throughout the middle section at 4413 Shelden Court Reach 1 has a few short riffles with long
shallow runs and pools are shallow and poorly distinguished from other bed features The
downstream end has deeper and more frequent pools Entrenchment ratios are high for Reach 1
(greater than 2 2) and therefore the channel is slightly entrenched The channel is fairly uniform in
width and bed form Reach 1 is almost fully shaded along the forested sections of the channel and
shading in the un forested section is approximately 10% Habitat structures are present but
sporadic occurring primarily in the forested sections and include woody debris leaf packs and
root mats The riparian buffer width exceeds 50 feet throughout much of the reach except for the
section flowing through 4413 Shelden Court where there is no riparian buffer (Photo 1) The
forested sections contain Chinese privet (Ligustrum smense)
Reach 2 Non RPW (not jurisdictional)
Reach 2 is an ephemeral swale that originates from a pipe on the western edge of the 8201
Duxbury Court property and flows north toward a forested area at the rear of the property The
reach is reinforced with riprap from the pipe to approximately 10 feet downstream of the outlet
Beyond the riprap reinforcement the channel flattens out and becomes indistinguishable from the
floodplain approximately 25 feet downstream of the pipe outlet The total drainage area at the
downstream end is 0 008 square miles (5 0 acres) Reach 2 lies entirely within the maintained yard
of 8201 Duxbury Court and is bordered by a privacy fence on the left top of bank The reach
becomes dispersed approximately 25 feet downstream of the pipe outlet and flows into a forested
area approximately 30 feet downstream from the culvert No geomorphological features or stream
hydrology were present at the time of assessment Reach 2 is stable and does not exhibit erosion
but it has no riparian buffer habitat structures or grade control structures No longitudinal profile
or cross sections were surveyed on Reach 2 because of the absence of geomorphological features
Reach 3 Seasonal RPW
Reach 3 originates from a pipe system at the southeast corner of the 4304 Morington Court
property The reach then flows a distance of 140 feet through portions of 4303 and 4301 Claybury

Court before draining into a pipe system on the eastern side and to the rear of 3327 New
Hampshire Drive (Photo 2) The reach has a drainage area of 0 082 square miles (52 7 acres) The
entire reach flows through residential backyards with a forested buffer of approximately 20 feet on
the right bank and 40 feet on the left bank Reach 3 is laterally and vertically stable due to low
bank angles bank toe protection provided by root mass and cobble and a moderate amount of
grade control in the form of several boulders and large cobbles throughout the reach Debris
including two bicycles was found in the channel and on the banks Reach 3 has short riffles
throughout and pools tend to be short and shallow Reach 3 has an average riffle length of 11 5
feet The pool depths average 0 8 feet with a pool to-pool spacing of 27 3 feet
This section of Wiseman Creek is fairly straight with only a few shallow bends (sinuosity = 1 1)
and has a slope of 0 15 percent Typically the cross sectional area is 6 2 square feet with a width to
depth ratio ranging from 7 3 to 9 4 Bank heights ranged from 2 7 to 2 9 feet The typical bed
material found in this section is fine gravel with an average D50 of 5 2 mm The majority of the
bed material throughout the reach consists of gravel and sand with numerous cobbles and
boulders the pools contain comparatively higher levels of silt Entrenchment ratios are high for
Reach 3 (greater than 2 2) and therefore the channel is slightly entrenched Reach 3 is a well
shaded cobble - gravel riffle /run system Habitat structures are somewhat sparse throughout the
reach and consist of large rocks exposed roots and overhanging shrubs in the upper portion of
the reach The presence of exposed roots and overhanging shrubs is sporadic within the
downstream portion of this reach
Reach 4 RPW
Reach 4 is a perennial stream that originates on the south side of Sunflower Road at New
Hampshire Drive and is 768 feet in length This reach has a drainage area of 0 183 square miles
017 4 acres) The reach terminates at a culvert dust upstream of Valley Grove Road Reach 4 flows
entirely through residential properties Most of the reach has a forested buffer of 25 to 30 feet on
both banks Reach 4 is laterally and vertically stable due to forested banks with moderate bank
angles bank toe protection provided by root mass cobble and boulders and grade control in the
form of boulders and cobbles throughout the reach There are only a few areas of minor bank
erosion (Photos 3 and 4)
Chinese privet is common throughout the reach Reach 4 has short cobble riffles with long
shallow runs and a low frequency of pools that occur primarily in the downstream portion of the
reach The riffles in Reach 4 average 11 2 feet in length The pool depths average 1 3 feet with a
pool to-pool spacing of 11 2 feet
Entrenchment ratios for Reach 4 range from 2 7 to 3 8 and therefore the channel is slightly to
moderately entrenched Reach 4 is partially to fully shaded Habitat structures consist of large rocks
and isolated areas of undercut banks and overhanging shrubs The riparian buffer is forested and is
characterized by scattered mature trees and a fairly open understory of herbaceous species
Chinese privet is common throughout the reach The buffer width along both banks ranges from 25
to 30 feet throughout most of the reach The downstream portion of the reach adjacent to the box
culvert has little to no buffer and the banks are reinforced with riprap
Reach 5 RPW
Reach 5 is a perennial stream that originates at Valley Grove Road and flows for 1 391 feet before
terminating 105 feet west of Cross Winds Roads between 3215 and 3221 Cross Winds Road It has
a drainage area of 0 223 square miles (142 7 acres) Residential lots border both sides of the reach
for the entire length Reach 5 is vertically stable due to large amounts of bedrock that serve as

grade control preventing the channel from downcutting However there are several areas of active
bank erosion throughout the reach (Photos 5 10) An area from 3411 to 3405 Arrow Lane is
exhibiting heavy erosion on the left bank which is causing instability in this section The lower
portion of the reach from 3301 Cross Winds Road to the pipe inlet is straight and confined on
both sides Entrenchment ratios for Reach 5 range from 2 2 to 5 6 and therefore the channel is
moderately entrenched
Reach 5 is a partially to fully shaded riffle /run system composed primarily of cobble and gravel
with frequent bedrock outcroppings Habitat structures are sparse except for large rocks which are
common throughout the entire reach and isolated areas of undercut banks and woody debris The
riparian buffer is forested throughout most of the reach and is typically 30 feet wide on each bank
however in some sections the buffer narrows or is absent The understory tends to be relatively
open and is comprised of shrubs and herbaceous species Chinese privet is common along the
banks
Reach 6 RPW
Reach 6 originating behind 3212 Cross Winds Road and flowing 140 feet into a pipe system at the
southeast corner of 3206 Cross Winds Road is a perennial stream with a drainage area of 0 235
square miles 0 50 4 acres) The channel flows through portions of two residential yards and has a
forested buffer of 10 to 15 feet on each side of the channel throughout most of the reach The
buffer is narrow to absent on the left bank at the upstream end of the reach where severe bank
erosion is encroaching on a privacy fence on the 3212 Cross Winds Road property (Photo 11)
Reach 6 is unstable at the upstream end due to severe erosion on left bank The banks are typically
9 feet high and bank angles are typically 45 degrees with steeper bank angles at the upstream end
where the banks are severely eroded The channel has a roughly 90 degree bend at the upstream
end and high flows are causing severe erosion at this bend The high banks prevent the channel
from having sufficient floodplain access The lower portion of the reach is generally straight and
more stable than the upstream end Bank toe protection is provided by root mass and cobble in the
lower portion of the reach Reach 6 is a partially shaded riffle/run system composed primarily of
cobble and gravel Pool depths are generally shallow and habitat structures are sparse except for
cobble and isolated areas containing small woody debris
Reach 7 RPW
Reach 7 originates from a twin culvert pipe system adjacent to 8835 Idlewild Road and is a
perennial stream that flows 160 feet into McAlpine Creek The reach flows through a vacant
undeveloped lot and has a drainage area of 0 240 square miles 0 53 8 acres) A forested buffer
approximately 20 to 30 wide lines each side of the channel Reach 7 is laterally and vertically
stable due to well vegetated buffers bank toe protection provided by root mass boulders and
cobble and a moderate amount of grade control in the form of boulders and large cobbles
throughout the reach The banks are typically approximately 11 feet high and bank angles are
approximately 40 degrees throughout the channel The reach is straight and slightly entrenched
Pool depths are shallow and habitat structures include cobbles and boulders some overhanging
vegetation and isolated areas of woody debris
No protected species are known to occur in the project area and none were observed during field
investigations The proposed project is not likely to adversely affect any protected species The US
Fish and Wildlife Service will be provided a courtesy copy of the PCN for their review The North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) did not list any historic properties in the
project area

PCN Section C 3 Stream Impacts
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream Impact
Type of
Stream
Perennial
Type of
Average
Impact
number
Impact
Name/Plan
(PER) or
Jurisdiction
Stream
Length
Permanent (P)
Sheet
Intermittent
Width
(linear
or Temporary
(INT)?
(feet)
feet)
M
S1
T
Replacement
Reach 7
PER
Corps and
13
85
of existing
Plan Sheet
DWQ
pipe system
4
and existing
rip rap apron
(NWP 3)
S2
P
Excavation
Reach 6
PER
Corps and
15
140
and hard
Plan Sheet
DWQ
stabilization
4
of channel
(NWP 3)
S3
T
Replacement
Reach 5
PER
Corps and
15
20
of existing
Plan Sheet
DWQ
pipe system
5
(NWP 3)
S4
T
Replacement
Reach 4
PER
Corps and
13
80
of pipe
Plan Sheet
DWQ
system and
910
installation
of riffle
grade control
(NWP 3)
S5
T
Soft Bank
Reach 5
PER
Corps and
9
378
Stabilization
Plan Sheet
DWQ
(NWP 13)
6
S6
T
Soft Bank
Reach 4
PER
Corps and
9
278
Stabilization
Plan Sheet
DWQ
(NWP 13)
910
S7
T
Replacement
Reach 2 3
INT
Corps and
7
55
of pipe
Plan Sheet
DWQ
system and
12
installation
of riffle
grade control
(NWP 3)
Total Impacts (temporary) 896
Total Impacts (permanent) 140
Total Impacts (all) 1 036

Impact Descriptions
Impact S1 (Figure 6, Sheets 4, D2, EC2, and EC4)
Stream Impact S1 will involve the replacement of two existing undersized 54 reinforced concrete
culverts beneath Braewick Place and adjacent residential properties with 292 linear feet of 11 x7
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) set at a lower elevation This impact also includes
replacing an existing and currently serviceable rip rap apron below the existing culvert s
downstream end with a rip -rap lined plunge pool (40 linear feet) Minor bank grading will be
required to accommodate the increased culvert width and depth Typical bank grading to
accommodate larger end walls (impact locations S1 S3 S4 & S7 consist of grading the banks back
at a 2 1 slope installing coir fiber matting The banks will be planted with a mixture of trees
shrubs and non invasive channel seeding Because of the culvert s length necessary slope and
the presence of bedrock it will be installed at the same elevation as the channel at both the
upstream and downstream ends While the proposed culvert s alignment will not exactly match
the existing one its upstream headwall will be in the same location as the existing one To
increase the distance between the proposed culvert s downstream headwall and an existing
sanitary sewer the proposed downstream headwall will be approximately four feet upstream of the
existing one Also to ensure that impacts to downstream aquatic habit are avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable a temporary rock check dam (5 linear feet wide) will be
installed in the stream channel approximately 40 downstream from the proposed plunge pool
Because the proposed culvert will not enclose any existing stream channel and the proposed
plunge pool will occupy the same footprint as the existing displaced rip -rap and concrete debris
no permanent stream impacts are anticipated During construction a pump around will be
installed 10 feet upstream of the proposed upstream headwall and will discharge into the proposed
plunge pool
Impact S1 will result in 85 linear feet of temporary stream impacts within Reach 7 and is proposed
for authorization under NWP 3 — Maintenance
Impact S2 (Figure 6, Sheets 4, 16, and S1)
Stream Impact S2 includes hard stabilization of bed and bank along Reach 6 which is located
directly between Braewick Place culvert and Cross Winds Road pipe systems (impacts S1 and S3)
The existing channel is extremely degraded with eroding vertical banks little bedform diversity
and large sediment deposits The bank loss threatens residential yards and structures Hard
stabilization is required due velocity depth shear stress and the lack of allowable area for softer
stabilization approaches The requirement to convey the 100 year storm event which prevents
the existing slab on grade houses from flooding requires box culverts at Braewick Place and Cross
Winds Drive The proximity of these closed systems to the houses further requires the proposed
RCBC to be deeper than the original pipe systems, which also requires the channel to be lowered
approximately 2 feet Impact S2 includes constructed planted benches in the proposed block
wall to soften the design and provide channel shade habitat and a more constricted low flow
channel The rip -rap bed stabilization also includes two pool habitats that will provide bedform

diversity and refugia both of which are currently lacking These features were specifically
designed to provide better habitat and morphology than traditional hard stabilization techniques
Impact S2 will result in 140 linear feet of permanent stream impacts within Reach 6 from hard
channel stabilization and is proposed for authorization under NWP 3 — Maintenance
Impact S3 (Figure 6, Sheets 5 and EC4)
Stream Impact S3 includes the replacement of an existing undersized 72 corrugated metal pipe
(CMP) beneath Cross Winds Road and adjacent residential properties with 400 linear feet of 10 x6
RCBC at or near the existing pipes elevation Minor bank stabilization (see description at S1) will
be required at the pipe system s upstream and downstream ends to accommodate its increased
width As with Impact S1 because of the RCBC s length grade and the presence of bedrock this
pipe system s bottom will be installed at the same elevation as the channel While the proposed
pipe system alignment will not exactly match the existing one both its upstream and downstream
headwalls will be in the same locations as the existing ones Because the proposed pipe system
will not enclose any existing stream channel no permanent stream impacts are anticipated
During construction a pump around will be installed 10 feet upstream of the proposed upstream
headwall It will discharge 10 feet downstream of the proposed pipe outlet
S3 will result in 20 linear feet of temporary stream impacts within Reach 5 and is proposed for
authorization under NWP 3 — Maintenance
Impact S4 (Figure 6, Sheets 10 11, D2, and EC6)
Stream Impact S4 includes the replacement of existing undersized 48 and 54 CMPs beneath
Sunflower Road and New Hampshire Drive with proposed 67 linear feet of 6 x4 RCBC and 541
linear feet of 66 reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) This maintenance activity will also include the
installation of 50 linear foot of riffle grade control structure at the outlet for scour protection The
bottom 1 5 of this structure will be composed of mixed riprap on filter fabric and will be located
below the stream bed An additional foot of native soil salvaged from the existing stream bed
mixed with #5 stone (gravel) will be installed above the rip rap to insure that the reach is returned
to its pre - construction condition Once installed the riffle will act as a grade control (not an
energy dissipater) below the downstream headwall which will protect it from being undercut A
temporary 5 linear foot wide check dam will be installed over the riffle Minor bank stabilization
(see S1 description) will be required at the pipe system s upstream and downstream ends to
accommodate its increased width As with Impacts S1 and S3 because of the pipe system length
grades and the presence of bedrock these pipe inverts will be installed at the same elevation as
the channel The proposed pipe system alignment almost exactly matches the existing one and
both its upstream and downstream headwalls will be in the same locations as the existing ones
Because the proposed pipe system will not enclose any existing stream channel and the riffle
grade control structure will be returned to its original elevation grade and substrate no permanent
stream impacts are anticipated During construction pump arounds will be installed 10 feet
upstream of the proposed upstream headwalls and will discharge into the proposed riffle grade
control

Impact S4 will result in 80 linear feet of temporary stream impacts within Reach 4 and is proposed
for authorization under NWP 3 — Maintenance
Impact S5 (Figure 6, Sheets 6, D1, EC5, and EC2)
Stream Impact S5 consists of 378 linear feet of soft bank stabilization along Reach 5 adjacent to
Arrow Lane The existing channel banks are unstable and contribute to decreased water quality
and loss of aquatic habitat The proposed stabilization will prevent further erosion and loss of
residential yards Specific stabilization measures include grading channel banks to a minimum 2 to
1 slope placement of coir erosion control matting live stakes bare root plantings and permanent
riparian seed mix This work will also require the temporary installation of two 15 linear foot wide
gravel stream crossings and one 5 linear foot wide check dam The crossings will be necessary to
provide equipment access to complete the bank stabilization activities The check dam will be
necessary to ensure that accidental /unintentional impacts to aquatic resources are avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable
Stream Impact S5 will result in 378 linear feet of temporary stream impact within Reach 5 and is
proposed for authorization under NWP 13 — Bank Stabilization
Impact S6 (Figure 6, Sheets 9, D1, EC5, and EC2)
Stream Impact S6 consists of 278 linear feet of soft bank stabilization along Reach 4 between
Valley Grove Road and Sunflower Road The existing channel banks are unstable and contribute
to lowered water quality and loss of aquatic habitat The proposed stabilization will prevent
further erosion and loss of residential yards Specific stabilization measures include grading
channel banks to a minimum 2 to 1 slope placement of coir erosion control matting live stakes
bare root plantings and permanent riparian seed mix This work will also require the temporary
installation of a 15 linear foot wide gravel stream crossing and a 5 linear foot wide check dam
The crossing will be necessary to provide equipment access to complete the bank stabilization
activities Impact S6 also includes stabilization of a non jurisdictional storm water channel that
enters the left bank
Stream Impact S6 will result in 278 linear feet of temporary stream impact within Reach 4 and is
proposed for authorization under NWP 13 — Bank Stabilization
Impact S7 (Figure 6, Sheets 12 14 and 132)
Stream Impact S7 will result from the replacement of an existing undersized closed system beneath
Morington Lane and adjacent properties The proposed closed system will be located within the
existing pipe system footprint and will not result in the loss of open channel The new pipe system
will be set at a lower elevation and minor grading and bed stabilization will be installed to
minimize channel erosion The maintenance activity will also include 25 linear feet of riffle grade
control above the upstream headwall of Reach 2 and 30 linear feet of riffle grade control below the
downstream headwall (Reach 3) of the main closed system During construction a pump around
will be installed within the proposed Reach 2 riffle grade control It will discharge within the
proposed downstream Reach 3 riffle grade control Because both pump around locations will be

installed within the proposed riffle grade control structures no temporary stream impacts are
anticipated
Impact S7 will result in 55 linear feet of temporary stream impacts within Reaches 2 and 3 and is
proposed for authorization under NWP 3 — Maintenance

PIZ
�0
er
Hilliard pr
y Irwin Rd Q-a
S Q
x. O
0 44,64 Hickory Grove Rd
'Vol
v
Central A ve
O °o
io
O1
� M °hro
e
Ra
L 9L
O N
W
CRarlotte
a
4a
N
NQ-a
N r
O�
Boyce Rd
O�
el
10A. Lr
Savd\s
ea~c���
O,.
Albemarle Rd
Mean
ohaa�e <
_ h
U a
O
a
w
Wiseman
Watershed
Sardis Rd N
O
,A
11110t
r
fl-
O
N
a
o
O
`�e0< eta
NC -51
NC
•y
�a'�ers R
a
°'moo Mint Hill
O
d �
O
�o
04,0
�r
'homPson Rd
2 3 4
1 in = 1 miles Miles
era
o'.\
,<a
cy
�WK Figure 1. Vicinity Map Legend N
IrDICI<SON Wiseman Storm Water Improvements WlsemanWatershed
community infrastructure consultants 0 0.5 1
0
o
0
fl-
O
N
a
o
O
`�e0< eta
NC -51
NC
•y
�a'�ers R
a
°'moo Mint Hill
O
d �
O
�o
04,0
�r
'homPson Rd
2 3 4
1 in = 1 miles Miles
era
o'.\
,<a
cy
�WK Figure 1. Vicinity Map Legend N
IrDICI<SON Wiseman Storm Water Improvements WlsemanWatershed
community infrastructure consultants 0 0.5 1

� m �
01
,-M�

�je
142 11 � ,. _- ■ ii t� • �h J st�atj21cy \� „ � .i<.�Y � _ - fry \y;_ • r � '-�'�✓" r t i\ Y r ;I
419 71
1� 1 � ; � , S Jam. � � �'� \ _ � ^ � •'y'
''.\ \ �_, '� .;7 \ a t yr' 7 � ' t • '`'� ) v' ,1
• {7 ��••! Sr 17 �`* I �'� ~•\�! _ ,.. 1 i '. , � :� �.`.`^\ .e � � : !� i � � - s'T�•r�3���/ J ,Sr-.
10 `t • �� �i'•. Vj • 7 �' t �``� a-S,ti .. . w `•'- `M I,
Jj
sp
µ• � � 'x- e � ?�.�°f! i .'� • _se •� �7 "�' r i.. `•'• .��yt i. v'a l�r �ti f > Eby ' � �
�a �, � ;4 1 �, � � , I to � ^i, ;'� r 34 �aM�4�►_`� � kY,:�"' i t� .� i L i
�
f
///
Y� i � � -� v� •� �.f ? �r i � v t��� •' � .4�•.'•�s � ♦ '" _ � .ate`' \T %�
'��'` . r �� � Xf "r� Yt�l e 1• �� at �� �! . 11,� •�� �, Y' j� a r ! _- 'r - -., >"� � �"-.
,� � � . -- it t � ,i r: ' ¢_,�; • �' � —,• •• t , ,�,' _rya ? > � r a + � �,.+� `� .
p:a V�r
Dr
oreit
� L1� • t 7 ` , .-- j+Y � i��� / I, f r�� - -�,�e • 4 \ \' �a �. �� t �f `..= t ti
�� -•• A •.,IL \ i rrr`� {�{�. �'- � 1 .. y� L,� r 1 - � -:�r� .•mac- )�` �t -t l xiJi '` _.r f \h. � �� ��� f\ 3� �'..
i_Y �� t j �,'�Y/ �_- J(f , }' ��. (� •�•,\ si -+-�ti �)( l� ;al \���`rt� t /`' , t ;•�) r i t 73�•
• � � • • • .,� \�� J. � l � ( t .\1., � I \�. -. i� + s � ! � � V � i`�f�. .5 l ��/ � ti ' •• 1 � �1�) 1 �'
1 _ �+i(yi
py
-.Al' irove),
�WPAa.i+r�'
.'i
1Y13 ION!;
t� Z.''�"`�! --'` f I '`, ,! � � I �__ � ' • •�• ; i r _ ":� �r � ��-,�ut � ."���3�� ='r � �r V j �� ` �(1 � , J1 � / n � Jti� . � j r11 ti
r r
Source: Mint Hill, NC; 1993
WWK Figure 3. USGS Quadrangle Map Legend N
WDICKSORI Wiseman Storm Water Improvements C3Watershed
community infrastructure consultants 0 1,000 2,000 4'000 6'000 � Closed Systems
1 inch - 2,000 feet V Feet � Existing Stream

HuB
ApB
CuB
)aF HeB
CeB2
APB
CeD2
CeB2
PaE
CeB2 ,
CeD2
CeD2
PaE-
Soil Series Legend
;eB�
ApB: Appling sandy loam, 2 -8% slopes EnB: Enon sandy loam, 2 -8% slopes MO: Monacan soils
ApD: Appling sandy loam, 8 -105% slopes EnD: Enon sandy loam, 8 -15% slopes PaE: Pacolet sandy loam, 15 -25% slopes
CeB2: Cecil sandy loam, 2-8% slopes, eroded HeB: Helena sandy loam, 2 -8% slopes PaF: Pacolet sandy loam, 25 -45% slopes
CeD2: Cecil sandy loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded HuB: Helena -Urban land complex, 2 -8% slopes WkD: Wilkes loam, 8 -15% slopes
CuB: Cecil -Urban land complex, 2 -8% slopes MkB: Mecklenburg- Urban land complex, 2 -8% slopes
ftWK Figure 4. Soils Map Legend N
Soils
W DICKSON Wiseman Storm Water Improvements ; Watershed
community infrastructure consultants 0 400 800 1,600 2,400 3,200 'Existing Stream
1 inch = 800 feet Feet Closed Systems

r,
Legend
Watershed
Closed Systems
Existing Stream
FEMA Zones
® AE
1% annual chance flood hazard
1% future conditions contained in culvert
Zone X (500 year flood, entire view)
W DICKSON
community infrastructure consuttonta
1 inch = 800 feet
Figure 5. FEMA Flood Map
Wiseman Storm Water Improvements
0 400 800 1,600 2,400 3,200
Feet
N
A

Reach 1
Seasonal RPW
Reach 2
Non RPW
Reach 4
RPW
Legend
sheet
QWatershed
Closed Systems
Existing Stream
Reach 5
RPW
Reach 6
RPW
Reach 7
RPW
Impact S7
Pipe System
Replacement
Reach 3
Seasonal RPW
Impact S4
Pipe System
Replacement
Impact S6
Bank
Stabilization
ImpactS5
Bank
Stabilization
Impact S3
Pipe System
Replacement
Impact S2
Bed/ Bank
Stabilization
Impact S1
Pipe System
Replacement
qw /►,1%1/1 Figure 6. Stream Impact Locations N
�/D1CKSON Wiseman Storm Water Improvements
community infrastructure consultants 0 400 U 000 1,600 2,400 3,200
1 inch = 800 feet V L `t Feet

Wiseman Creek Stream Problem Areas by Reach
Reach 1
Photo 1. Absence of riparian buffer for 100 feet at the rear of the 4413 Sheldon Court
property.
Reach 3
Photo 2. Erosion on left bank at downstream pipe inlet.

I

Reach 5
Photo 5. Right bank erosion with a fence at the top of bank behind 3300 Valley Grove
Road.
Photo 6. Left bank erosion behind 3411 and 3405 Arrow Lane.

`►1
�l
Y
. r
w
r
y

,i> -. v •� �� —"ter' •4`i �:`% � •- • +�8 . c ,fly _ ,
� k
ion—
en
• � 1 tII ow
Aw
+r' /
1 1
{ .s' ti i s
r
ik
It
«y
4
_ "�1iE�►�i3 _.

4 } PA
`t 3 °

Tax ID Table for Wiseman Storm Water Improvement Project*
Tax ID (PIN)
OWNER
Street Address
Area (acres)
13509399
Mecklenburg County
Idlewild Rd
1015
13512101
Meredith Wilson Mullis
8915 Idlewdd Rd
140
13509202
Mark F Beall
3206 Cross Winds Rd
037
13509203
Jose O Martinez
3212 Cross Winds Rd
034
13509113
Marshall L McNair and Wife
3215 Cross Winds Rd
029
13509114
Annie C Clay
3221 Cross Winds Rd
029
13059115
Harold Ray Poole and Wife
3227 Cross Winds Rd
029
13509116
Andrew Lohr
3233 Cross Winds Rd
028
13509117
Earl J Deas
3301 Cross Winds Rd
028
13509118
Diane Evans Blake
3307 Cross Winds Rd
028
13509102
Juan Garcia Cruz
3300 Wiseman Dr
033
13509101
Audrey Martin
3306 Wiseman Dr
042
13506319
Levon M Lamb and Wife
3310 Wiseman Dr
035
13506318
Glenn A Love and Wife
3316 Wiseman Dr
033
13506304
Kit Carson Woodell 111
3400 Arrow Ln
062
13506305
Gary W Justice
3405 Arrow Ln
054
13506317
Nora M Nelson
3324 Wiseman Dr
032
13506316
Fabio Castillo and Wife
3330 Arrow Ln
039
13506315
Sarah L Westcott
3300 Valley Grove Rd
064
13506313
Theresa K Morgan
3316 Valley Grove Rd
101
13506307
Susan Gail Marchisio
3419 Arrow Ln
042
13506112
Ephraim B Pellom
3323 Valley Grove Rd
053
13506125
Wendy L Sims
8212 Sunflower Rd
028
13506126
Shannon E Meehan
8208 Sunflower Rd
028
13506113
Hans Faassen and Wife
8526 Sunflower Rd
057
13506114
Hans Faassen and Wife
8526 Sunflower Rd
052
13506115
Hans Faassen and Wife
8526 Sunflower Rd
027
13506116
Larry E Young Jr
8504 Sunflower Rd
022
13506117
Pascual Aviles
8500 Sunflower Rd
021
13506118
Jacqueline Dickey
8418 Sunflower Rd
025
13506119
Stephanie Claude Cornwell
8414 Sunflower Rd
0 28
13506120
Faith A Boyd
8316 Sunflower Rd
031
13506420
Fred O Black Jr
3327 New Hampshire Dr
02
13505127
Janice J Welfare
4301 Claybury Ct
030
13505128
George W Spencer
4303 Claybury Ct
026
13505136
John A Hubbard
4304 Morington Ln
027
13505140
George F Kopti
4305 Morington Ln
023
13505139
Loseph N Tissue
4301 Morington Ln
023
13505104
Carl Gaither Ballard
8111 Idlewdd Rd
374
13506415
Andree T Fryer
8201 Duxbury Ct
021
13506414
Marilyn G Adair
8200 Duxbury Ct
032
13504640
Debbie M Park
4407 Sheldon Ct
022
13504639
Manuel Cabrera
4411 Sheldon Ct
022
13504638
Raymond G Dobbins
4413 Sheldon Ct
033
13504644
Better Builders Inc
8221 Meadowdale Ln
024
13504645
Thomas R Crosby
8217 Meadowdale Ln
037
13504646
Brain A McCrimmon
8213 Meadowdale Ln
035
13504612
Johnson Ray Realty Inc
8200 Country Oaks Rd
021
*does not include owners of closed system areas only with components of reaches 17

Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Wiseman Storm Drainage Improvements
This jurisdictional delineation (JD) report is submitted on behalf of Charlotte- Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services Mecklenburg County NC
1 PROJECT INFORMATION
A Waters of the US (including wetlands) delineation was completed during April 2009 for
the Wiseman project area in Mecklenburg County NC This memorandum presents the
methods results and conclusions for the above referenced project The project area was
defined as the extent of the closed and open channel drainage systems in the Wiseman
watershed Specifically the primary drainage feature originates above Mission Hills Road
and flows south into McAlpine Creek which I located dust south of Braewick Place
2 METHODS
Jurisdictional Waters of the US, including wetlands are defined by 33 CFR Part 328 3 and
are protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) which is administered
and enforced by the US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) The delineation of
jurisdictional waters of the US was performed utilizing the Routine On Site Determination
Method as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Supplement) This technique uses a three parameter approach
which requires positive evidence of
• Hydrophytic vegetation
• Hydric soils
• Wetland hydrology
Areas exhibiting the above three wetland characteristics as well as surface waters were
marked in the field with sequentially numbered pink and black stripped surveyors tape
The origins of perennial and intermittent streams were also delineated using USACE and
NCDWQ guidance documents and marked with pink and black stripped surveyors tape
The delineation of jurisdictional wetland boundaries on the site consisted of in house
research and field investigations In house research included a review of information
sources such as US Geologic Survey 7 5 minute topographic quadrangle aerial
photography and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps Subsequent to the in house
review wetlands and surface waters were delineated in the field utilizing the above stated
methodology
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
No wetlands are indicated within the project area on either the USGS 7 5 minute
topographic quadrangle map (Mint Hill NC 1993) or the NWI mapping for the project site
A review of available aerial photography did not indicate any obvious wetland areas Both
the Quadrangle and Mint Hill NC NWI map show an unnamed tributary to McAlpine
Creek in the project area Subsequent to the in house research a field investigation was
performed to delineate waters of the US
No wetlands were delineated in the project area The project area is composed entirely of
developed residential properties and roadways The open drainage channels were
typically incised further draining any potential relic wetlands No hydric soil was

encountered and no wetland hydrology indicators were observed in the project area.
Common facultative wetland vegetation such as red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) were observed. However, these
species are also indicative of disturbance, and alone do not indicate the presence of
jurisdictional wetlands.
The unnamed tributary to McAlpine Creek was identified as a Relatively Permanent Water
(RPW) at the downstream end of the project area. This channel transitions to a Seasonal
RPW higher in the watershed. This primary drainage channel is a jurisdictional stream.
One non - jurisdictional channel was identified between Duxbury Court and Morrington
Drive. This channel was ephmemeral and lacked morphological and hydrologic indicators
typical of RPWs and Seasonal RPWs.
The attached exhibit details the stream reach identification numbers and location. Existing
conditions at the time of the site visit are described below. A Jurisdictional Determination
Form (Rapanos), NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms, and USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet are also attached.
Reach 1: Seasonal RPW
Reach 1, the most upstream reach,
originates at a storm water conveyance
outfall in a forested residential area, and
flows south for a distance of 403 feet.
This reach is seasonal and has a
drainage area of 0.022 square mile
(14.1 acres). The reach ends at a culvert
at the northwest corner of the 4407
Sheldon Court property. From there, the
stream system is conveyed 720 feet
underground beneath Mission Hills
Road and Morington Lane, to an outfall
at the southeast corner of the 4304
Morington Lane property. The majority
of Reach 1 is laterally and vertically
stable due to low bank angles and bank toe protection provided by root mass. The section
that flows through 4413 Shelden Court is unstable due to a steeper left bank and lack of
riparian buffer and toe protection. Reach 1 lacks bedform diversity throughout with mostly
"riffle" habitat present. Reach 1 scored 25 points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification
Form, which classifies the channel as intermittent (seasonal RPW).

Reach 2: Non -RPW (not jurisdictional)
Reach 2 is an ephemeral swale that
originates from a culvert on the western
edge of the 8201 Duxbury Court
property, and flows north toward a
forested area at the rear of the property.
The reach is reinforced with riprap from
the culvert to approximately 10 feet
downstream of the culvert. Beyond the
riprap reinforcement, the channel
flattens out and becomes
indistinguishable from the floodplain
approximately 25 feet downstream of the
culvert. The total drainage area at the
downstream end is 0.008 square mile
(5.0 acres). No geomorphological
features or stream hydrology were present at the time of assessment. Reach 2 scored 8.5
points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form, which classifies the channel as
ephemeral (non RPW).
Reach 3: Seasonal RPW
Reach 3 originates from a culvert at
the southeast corner of the 4304
Morington Court property. The reach
then flows a distance of 140 feet
through portions of 4303 and 4301
Claybury Court before draining into a
culvert on the eastern side and to the
rear of 3327 New Hampshire Drive.
The reach has a drainage area of
0.082 square mile (52.7 acres). The
entire reach flows through residential
backyards with a forested buffer width
of approximately 20 feet on the right
bank and 40 feet on the left bank.
Reach 3 is laterally and vertically
stable due to low bank angles, bank toe protection provided by root mass and cobble, and
a moderate amount of grade control in the form of several boulders and large cobbles
throughout the reach. Reach 3 scored 28 points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification
Form, which classifies the channel as intermittent (seasonal RPW).

Reach 4: RPW
i Reach 4 is a perennial stream that
Y originates on the south side of
*` Sunflower Road at New
Hampshire Drive, and is 768 feet in
length. This reach has a drainage area
of 0.183 square miles (117.4 acres).
The reach terminates at a culvert just
upstream of Valley Grove Road.
Reach 4 flows entirely through
residential properties. Most of the
reach has a forested buffer width of 25
to 30 feet on both banks. Reach 4 is
laterally and vertically stable due to
forested banks with moderate bank
angles, bank toe protection provided
by root mass, cobble, and boulders, and grade control in the form of boulders and cobbles
throughout the reach. There are only a few areas of minor bank erosion. Reach 4 scored
33.5 points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form, which classifies the channel as
perennial (RPW).
Reach 5: RPW
Reach 5 is a perennial stream that
originates at Valley Grove Road, and
flows for 1,391 feet before terminating
105 feet west of Cross Winds Road
between 3215 and 3221 Cross Winds
Road. It has a drainage area of 0.223
square mile (142.7 acres). Residential
lots border both sides of the reach for
the entire length. Reach 5 is vertically
stable due to large amounts of bedrock
that serve as grade control, preventing
the channel from downcutting.
However, there are several areas of
active bank erosion throughout the
reach. An area from 3411 to 3405 Arrow Lane is exhibiting heavy erosion on the left bank,
which is causing instability in this section. The lower portion of the reach, from 3301 Cross
Winds Road to the culvert, is straight and confined on both sides. Reach 5 scored 34.5
points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form, which classifies the channel as
perennial (RPW).
4

Reach 6: RPW
Reach 6, originating behind 3212 Cross
X ? Winds Road and flowing 140 feet into a
culvert at the southeast corner of 3206
Cross Winds Road, is a perennial stream
with a drainage area of 0.235 square
mile 0 50.4 acres). The channel flows
through portions of two residential
yards, and has a forested buffer of 10 to
15 feet on each side of the channel
throughout most of the reach. The buffer
is narrow to absent on the left bank at
the upstream end of the reach where
severe bank erosion is encroaching on a
~� privacy fence on the 3212 Cross Winds
Road property. Reach 6 is unstable at the upstream end due to severe erosion on left bank.
The banks are typically 9 feet high, and bank angles are typically 45 degrees, with steeper
bank angles at the upstream end where the banks are severely eroded. The channel has a
roughly 90 degree bend at the upstream end, and high flows are causing severe erosion at
this bend. The high banks prevent the channel from having sufficient floodplain access.
The lower portion of the reach is generally straight and more stable than the upstream end.
Reach 6 scored 33.5 points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form, which classifies
the channel as perennial (RPW).
Reach 7: RPW
Identification Form,
Reach 7 originates from twin culverts
adjacent to 8835 Idlewild Road, and is a
perennial stream that flows 160 feet into
McAlpine Creek. The reach flows
through a vacant, undeveloped lot, and
has a drainage area of 0.240 square mile
(153.8 acres). Reach 7 is laterally and
vertically stable due to well- vegetated
buffers, bank toe protection provided by
root mass, boulders, and cobble, and a
moderate amount of grade control in the
form of boulders and large cobbles
throughout the reach. Reach 7 scored 37
points on the NCDWQ Stream
which classifies the channel as perennial (RPW).

Attachments
Figure 1
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms

n
e
y
x
.. a
Jo
M
fill
t 0
i
Q >
3;
t a 40
• o� r

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 Wiseman Storm Drainage Improvements
State North Carolina County/parish/borough Mecklenburg City Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format) Lat 35 1766 N Long 80 7197 1u
Universal Transverse Mercator
Name of nearest waterbody UT to McAlpine Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows Mcalpine Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Catawba (HUC 03050103)
rCheck 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)
BOffice (Desk) Determination Date
Field Determination Date(s)
SECTION II SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
There re no navigable waters of the US 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 Kri 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 to review area (check all that apply) i
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 2 600 linear feet 10 width (ft) and/or 0 75 acres
Wetlands 0 00 acres
c Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on X1987 Delineation Many
Elevation of established OHWM (if known) unknown
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 An ephemeral channel that runs from the dam to UT to Reed Creek (Crozier Branch) was determined to be
non jurisdictional
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 TN W 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

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 waterbody° is not an RPW or a wetland directly abutting an RPW a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW If the tributary has adjacent wetlands the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands This significant nexus evaluation that combines for
analytical purposes the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary or its adjacent wetlands or both If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands complete Section III B 1 for
the tributary Section 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 0 993 tquare mile Dramage area 0 993 re mile
Average annual rainfall 57 96 inches
Average annual snowfall 1 7 inches
(u) Physical Characteristics
(a) Relationship with TNW
® Tributary flows directly into TNW
❑ Tributary flows through fkk Lis tributaries before entering TNW
Project waters are f -0-r-l-es-si river miles from TNW
Project waters are Pick Lis river miles from RPW
Project waters are Fick Lis aerial (straight) miles from TNW
Project waters are PLck Lis aerial (straight) miles from RPW
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries Explain NO
Identify flow route to TNW5 UT to McAlpine Creek flows approximately directly into McAlpine Creek (TNW)
Tributary stream order if known
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales ditches washes and erosional features generally and in the and
West
5 Flow route can be described by identifying e g tributary a which flows through the review area to flow into tributary b which then flows into TNW

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply)
Tributary is ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man made) Explain
® Manipulated (man altered) Explain Channelized and culverted in project area
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate)
Average width 10 feet
Average depth 5 feet
Average side slopes Z
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply)
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ® Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation Type /A cover
❑ Other Explain
Tributary condition/stability [e g highly eroding sloughing banks] Explain vanble eroding to stable banks
Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes Explain mostly run/nffle habitat
Tributary geometry kelahvel sy tra►gh
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope) 1 /
(c) Flow
Tributary provides for easonal flo_ �
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year 2 5S
Describe flow regime perennial most years
Other information on duration and volume
Surface flow is iscrete and conl6neA Characteristics
Subsurface flow �tnknowg 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
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® shelving
®
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down bent or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
®
scour
® sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list)
❑ 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)
me 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
(m) 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 i unsdiction (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
lbid

(iv) Biological Characteristics Channel supports (check all that apply)
❑ Riparian corridor Characteristics (type average width) bottomland swamp >200 feet wide throughout
❑ Wetland fringe Characteristics bottomland hardwood >200 feet wide
❑ 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 Fick List€ Explain
Surface flow is Fick Lis
Characteristics
Subsurface flow ick Lis 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 Ick Lis river miles from TNW
Project waters are _Pick Lis aerial (straight) miles from TNW
Flow is from ick Lis
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ck Lisi floodplam
(u) 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
(m) Biological Characteristics Wetland supports (check all that apply)
❑ Riparian buffer Characteristics (type average width)
❑ 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 an
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis ck Lis
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis

For each wetland specify the following
Directly abuts9 (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directlyabuts9 (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 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 The tributary has the capacity to carry pollutants and nutrients to a TNW and offers some treatment of pollutants
prior to reaching a TNW The tributary and its adjacent wetlands also provide a contiguous wetland/aquatic habitat down to the
TNW
D DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY)
1 TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area
Q TNWs linear feet width (ft) Or acres
[] 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 A NCDWQ stream classification form was completed for UT to Reedy Creek (Crozier Branch) and the
channel scored 38 points indicating perennial flow UT to Reedy Creek (Crozier Branch) is a junsdictional perennial stream
due to the presence of groundwater input macroinvertebrates and geomorphology indicative of continuous stream flow

❑ 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 3 000 linear feet 10 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 Wetland abuts and flows directly into UT to Reedy Creek (Crozier Branch)
approximately 218 hnear feet downstream of the Betty Coleman Pond dam
❑ 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 junsdictional 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 junsdictional 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
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)"
8See Footnote # 3
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III D 6 of the Instructional Guidebook
Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps /EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos

❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce
Interstate isolated waters Explain
❑ Other factors Explain
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination
Provide estimates for Jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply)
❑ Tributary waters linear feet width (ft)
❑ Other non wetland waters acres
Identify type(s) of waters
❑ Wetlands acres
F NON JURISDICTIONAL WATERS INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in SWANCC the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
Migratory Bird Rule (MBR)
❑ Waters do not meet the Significant Nexus standard where such a finding is required for Jurisdiction Explain
❑ Other (explain if not covered above)
Provide acreage estimates for non Jurisdictional waters in the review area where the sole potential basis of Jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i a presence of migratory birds presence of endangered species use of water for irrigated agriculture) using best professional
Judgment (check all that apply)
Non wetland waters (i a rivers streams) linear feet width (ft)
Lakes /ponds acres
Other non wetland waters acres List type of aquatic resource
Wetlands acres
Provide acreage estimates for non Jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the Significant Nexus standard where such
a finding is required for Jurisdiction (check all that apply)
❑ Non wetland waters (i a rivers streams) linear feet width (ft)
Lakes /ponds acres
Other non wetland waters acres List type of aquatic resource
Wetlands acres
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
im ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
U S Geological Survey map(s) Cite scale & quad name 1 24 000 Harrisburg
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Citation Mecklenburg County 2011
National wetlands inventory map(s) Cite name
State /Local wetland inventory map(s)
FEMA/FIRM maps
100 year Floodplam Elevation is (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs ® Aerial (Name & Date) 2009 obtained from NC OneMap
or ❑ Other (Name & Date)
❑ Previous determination(s) File no and date of response letter
❑ Applicable /supporting case law
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature

❑ Other information (please specify)
B ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
al STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment
1 Applicants name G 6-ws 2 Evaluators name amel J;oi ooli
3 Date of evaluation / 11CY-1 r Vol 4 Time of evaluation
5 Name of stream 6 River basin
7 Approximate drainage area 15-0 aG 8 Stream order
I
9 Length of reach evaluated 00t 10 County�e����
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decunal degrees 12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude (ex 34 872312) Longitude (ex -77 556611)
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks And attach m dentifying stream(s) location)
/i05 f fir! � /.32�ewrCk P/_ 1(P 6 -
14 Proposed channel work (if any) 5-163.1'r 7
15 Recent weather conditions
16 Site conditions at time of visit
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? YES (W If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (9 NO 20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? l:.y NO
21 Estimated watershed land use 8� % Residential
r ?- % Forested
22 Bankfull width ! -[
24 Channel slope down center of stream _Flat (0 to 2 1/6)
25 Channel sinuosity Straight Occasional bends
Z_% Commercial
% Industrial
_% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged
L% Other ( r y )4
bf -► - _}
23 Bank height (from
bed to top of bank)
Koentle (2 to 4 1/6)
_Moderate (4 to 10 1/6)
,Steep ( >10 %)
_Frequent meander
Very sinuous
!.Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2) Begin by detemunmg 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 smatter 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) Comments h
Evaluator s Signature Date
This channel evaluation form 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 06103 To Comment, please call 919 876 8441 x 26

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4 1
Date n%�
Project/Site 1���
Latitude
Evaluator
County
Longitude
Total Points
�i
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is et least Intermittent
if z Igor rennral if z 30 (./
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology (Subtotal=
t S
Absent
Weak
Mo to
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool step pool
npple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
CD
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
CV
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0 5
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
Sketch
15
11 Second or greater order channel
WEI
Yes = 3
" artificial ditches are not rated see dis sions in manual
B Hydrology
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
M
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
T-5
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0 5
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
5
1
15
17 Sod based evidence of high water tables
I No = 0
Y =
C Biology (Subtotal= a s )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
(_33
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
01
1
2
3
22 Fish
Gz
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
1
15
25 Algae
0
0
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL =1 5 Othifr52
perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

jee4c"A, c-/,
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date n I t,'cq
ProjectfSlte WI a
Latitude
Evaluator 1
County
Longitude
Total Points --
Pt
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream !sat least rnfermktent � j
rf Z 19 or erennra! if >_ 30
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
I e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle pool step -pool
ripple pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1. 05
2
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
(0-52-
0 5
1
15
11 Second or greater order channel
-
Yes = 3
° artlflcial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hvdrologv (Subtotal= 11_57_ )
12 Presence of Baseflow
CO.)
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
co
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
is
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
1. 05
1
1 15
17 Soil based evidence of high water table?
60 =
Yes = 3
C 8iologv (Subtotal= - 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
0 5
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
0
1
15
25 Algae
0
65
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 15 2!er 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

feedck 3
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date n ���
Project/Site W13e r�d6�►
Latitude
Evaluator
County ,
Longitude
Total Points
Scream is at least intermittent Z �
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
l i f2: 3
if _ 19 or perennial if Z 30
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e g Quad Name
I /J e—
A Geomorphology Subtotal = t (
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3 In channel structure ex riffle pool step -pool
ripple pool sequence
0
o U
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
co
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
M
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
0
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0 y
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
15
11 Second or greater order channel
N =
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see d cussions in manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal = 9 t.l— )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
0
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
o U
21 Aquatic Mollusks
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
15
17 Soil based evidence of high water table'?
No = 0
Y s =
C biology (Subtotal = L
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
k Ed
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
1
15
25 Algae
o
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL
1 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identfied using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date n 200
Project/Site r3�yr�
Latitude
Evaluator
County�r
Longitude
Total Points
stream is at least intermittent
Stream determination (circle one)
Other
if _ �C
if _ 79 or perennial : 30
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e g Quad Name
I Y-- C--
A Geomorphology Subtotal = (5 r
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 & Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
05
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool step -pool
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
QV
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
W
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
15
11 Second or greater order channel
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see di s sions In manual v
B Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
W
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
15
17 Soil based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
yo =
C Biology (Subtotal= 10
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
G2
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
1
15
25 Algae
0
QIY
1
1 15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBl
47190ther = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

qeadi 5
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date n ( -ya
Projecfisite r� ,e �r
Latitude
Evaluator I v
County �
Longitude
Total Points ,
Stream is of feast intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e Quad Name
!f 2:19 or erennraf rf ;t30 L
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
g
I — i-�
A Geomorphology (Subtotal = J J
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In channel structure ex nffle pool step pool
ripple ool sequence
0
1
1
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
15
5 Active/relict floodplaln
0
1
1
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
U
2
3
8 Headcuts
U
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0
26 Wetland plants in streambed
15
10 Natural valley
0
0 5
perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
15
11 Second or greater order channel
o =
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see di s ssions in manual
B Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = }
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
--2,
3
14 Leaf litter
16
1
0
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
15
17 Soil based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Y -
L filologY (Subtotal = ( n }
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
JCL
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
1
15
25 Algae
0
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL =
Other = 0
perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

ReetcA 6
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date n (N
Project/SiteI��
Latitude
Evaluator
County,
Longitude
Total Points �o
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if? 19 or perennial it a 30
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
P
a Quad Name
9
/ /_ (---
A Geomorphology (Subtotal= ( U c � )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex rrffle pool step pool
n le- ool sequence
0
1
21 Aquatic Mollusks
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
CU
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
24 Amphibians
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
15
15
25 Algae
2
9 Grade control
0
05
Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
10 Natural valley
0
05
Cy
15
11 Second or greater order channel
NM
Yes =3
artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 7 )
12 Presence of Basellow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
21 Aquatic Mollusks
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
0
1
15
17 Soil based evidence of high water table?
N -
Yes = 3
C Bioloav (Subtotal = ( U 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
64
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
1
1
15
15
25 Algae
0
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL =
Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

ec-ach - /
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date n ( �
Project/Site M''' 14
Latitude
Evaluator
County t'j
Longitude
Total Paints
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination {circle one}
Other
rf z 19 or erennral if � 30
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e g Quad Name
i —7 C'--
A Geomorphology (Subtotal =—U-4 4 11
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
05
0
3 In channel structure ex riffle -pool step pool
ripple pool sequence
0
1
2
15
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
0
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
Cy
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1
10 Natural valley
0
05
15
11 Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
aninciat ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 'rr 5—)
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
21 Aquatic Mollusks
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0
1
15
17 Soil based evidence of high water tablet
No = 0
Yes
V t lOiOCIV fubtotal = f U )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
Q
1
15
25 Algae
0
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL =
Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch