20130218 Ver 1_401 Application_20130313

Letter of Transmittal
SBME, Inc.
9761 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
(704) 523 -4726
(704) 525 -3953 fax
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
❑ Shop drawings
® Copy of letter
20130218
DATE: 2.25.2013
JOB NO: 1357 -13 -002
ATTENTION: Ms. Karen Huggins
RE: Northpark Pond Dam Repair PCN
CERTIFIED MAIL
2.22.2013
® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Draft ❑ Specifications
❑ Report
COPIES
DATE
NO
DESCRIPTION
5
2.22.2013
1
Pre - Construction Notification / Jurisdictional Determination Request for Northpark
Pond Dam Repair Project
1
11.30.2012
1
70% Construction Plans for Northpark Pond Improvements (reduced to 11X17)
1
2.25.2013
1
CD with digital (pdf) copy of the above
1
2.20.2013
2
$240.00 Check for Water Quality Certification Processing Fee
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
® For approval ❑ For your record
❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FORBIDS DUE: / / ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS: Attached Please find the above. Please let Isaac Hinson or myself know If you have questions. Thank you.
- Dave Homans
SIGN:
COPY TO:
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE.
This Letter of Transmittal and the documents accompanying this Letter of Transmittal contain information from SBME, Inc., which Is confidential and legally
privileged. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity, named on this Letter of Transmittal. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on these documents is strictly prohibited.
SBME SFG-W1
(Rev. 04/04)

L., TI.- I
1P
February 22, 2013
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
Attention: Ms. Amanda Jones
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Attention: Ms. Karen Higgins
Reference: Pre - Construction Notification (Nationwide Permit No. 3) and
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Northpark Pond Dam Repairs
Charlotte, North Carolina
S &ME Proj ect No. 1357-13-002
Dear Ms. Jones & Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS), S &ME, Inc.
(S &ME) is submitting this application for impacts to waters of the U.S. in accordance
with Department of the Army Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3 (Maintenance Activities)
and North Carolina General Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3883. This Pre -
Construction Notification (PCN) is being submitted for maintenance activities associated
with replacement of a failing spillway and potentially unstable dam on a pond off of
Northlake Court, in Charlotte, North Carolina. In support of this application, please find
enclosed the following:
• Figures: Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), 2010
Aerial Photograph / Approximate Waters of the U.S. (Figure 3) and Proposed
Impacts (Figure 4);
• Appendix I: Completed PCN;
• Appendix II: Site Photographs;
• Appendix III: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form; and
• Appendix IV: Wetland Determination Data Forms and N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) Stream Identification Forms.
The proposed proj ect will involve permanent impacts to 92 linear feet (lf) of stream, 0.01
acres of permanent impact to open waters, and 0.13 acres of temporary impacts to open
S &ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Blvd/ Charlotte, NC / p 704.523.4726 / f 704.525.3953/www.smeinc.com

Nationwide Permit No.3 /Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357 -13 -002
Northoark Pond Dam Repairs. Charlotte. N.C. February 22. 2013
waters. As the proposed project involves impacts to greater than 401f of stream and
involves placement of additional riprap and fill within streams, written concurrence from
DWQ and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is required.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The proposed project area is located on Mecklenburg County Parcel No. 03737309 and is
located off of Northlake Court in the Northpark office complex off of Sunset Road in
Charlotte, North Carolina. The location of the project area is depicted on the Site
Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the appropriate portions of the Derita, NC (1993) USGS
Topographic Map (Figure 2), and the 2010 Aerial Photograph / Approximate Waters of
the U.S. Map (Figure 3).
The project area is largely composed of an impoundment of McIntyre Creek (referred to
as Northpark Pond), adjacent wooded areas, and sanitary sewer easements. The project
parcel is bordered by residences to the north and office parks to the east, south and west.
Currently, the only outlet of Northpark Pond is a small riprap outlet spillway at the
western edge of the earthen dam. A more extensive concrete spillway that was present
downstream of this outfall has been completely undermined by the outlet stream (Stream
S 1, McIntyre Creek). The former spillway is now made up of large broken concrete slabs
that are filling the channel and leading to extensive bank erosion and channel
degradation. The purpose of the proposed repair project is to replace the current failed
spillway with a new weir -wall outlet structure and spillway. Additionally, the existing
earthen embankment was determined to be at long -term risk of instability; as such, the
dam will be excavated and rebuilt to more accommodate stable dimensions and
specifications as a component of the proposed project.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
On February 12, 2013, Mr. David Homans, an S &ME natural resources professional,
visited the project area to determine the jurisdictional status of streams and wetlands and
delineate boundaries of jurisdictional features using flagging tape. The delineation was
conducted utilizing currently accepted methods for wetland determination, as set forth in
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Stream assessments were
conducted in accordance with DWQ and USACE guidelines. The locations of flags
demarcating jurisdictional boundaries were recorded using a GPS unit capable of sub -
meter accuracy. The results of the jurisdictional delineation are depicted on Figure 3.
Representative photographs of the project area are included in Appendix 11 and their
locations are included on Figure 3.
S &ME's field review of the project area identified four jurisdictional relatively permanent
waters (RPWs) and one jurisdictional wetland abutting a RPW, and one jurisdictional
impoundment. Streams S1, S2, and S3 were classified as perennial RPWs, while Stream
S2a, a small side channel to Stream S2, was classified as intermittent. Descriptions of
the jurisdictional features based on field conditions observed during S &ME's assessment
are described below:
2

Nationwide Permit No.3 /Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357 -13 -002
Northoark Pond Dam Repairs. Charlotte. N.C. February 22. 2013
Stream SI (McIntyre Creek)
Stream S 1 originates at the outfall of Northpark Pond and flows north out of the project
parcel. It exhibited geomorphic, hydrologic and biological characteristics consistent with
perennial flow. Downstream of the outfall area, the channel was incised with substantial
bank erosion occurring along both banks (Photo 1). The bed was largely scoured down to
hardpan clay, with patches of riprap present throughout the channel. Immediately
downstream of Northpark Pond, the channel has eroded down through the embankment
and has undermined the former concrete spillway, which has broken into large slabs that
cover much of the channel (Photo 2).
Streams S2 and S2a
Stream 2 is classified as a perennial jurisdictional channel based on a DWQ Stream
Identification Form score of 32.5 (Photo 3). This channel originates downstream of a
blown out riprap check dam located at the outfall of a small storm water retention basin at
the edge of the project parcel. High flows have scoured out a second smaller channel to
the west of Stream S2 within the adjacent floodplain (Photo 4). This channel (S2a) is
classified as an intermittent jurisdictional channel based on a DWQ Stream Identification
Form score of 20.5 and rejoins Stream S2 approximately 95 if after its origin. Stream S2
then flows into Wetland WA prior to dissipating into Northpark Pond.
Stream S3
Stream S3 originates at the southern property line and is classified as a perennial
jurisdictional channel based on a DWQ Stream Identification Form score of 35 (Photo 5
and 6). It flows north through Wetland WA for approximately 1571f at which point it
loses a defined bed and bank and dissipates into Wetland WA.
Northpark Pond
Northpark pond (Photo 7) is a man -made open water impoundment of Stream S 1
(McIntyre Creek) which is fed by both Streams S2 and S3. This impoundment was
formed by an earthen embankment dam along its northern edge (Photo 8).
Wetland WA
Located along the southern edge of Northpark Pond, Wetland WA has formed in the flat
floodplain areas adjacent to streams S2 and S3. Wetland WA is dominated by emergent
vegetation such as smartweed (Persicaria sp.) and j ewelweed (Impantiens capensis) near
its interface with Northpark Pond (Photo 9) and transitions into a sparsely forested
wetland (Photo 10) with an overstory of black willow (Salix nigra) and red maple (Acer
rubrum) and an understory dominated by ironwood (Carpinus carohniana) and Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Below the earthen embankment, a drainage ditch was evaluated for potential jurisdiction
(Photo 11). The ditch did not exhibit geomorphic conditions consistent with regular flow
and was dry at the time of investigation though weather conditions had been fairly wet in
the days prior to the field assessment. Due to these factors and the lack of a defined bed
or bank, the ditch was determined to not be a jurisdictional stream. This feature was also
evaluated to determine if it met the characteristics of a jurisdictional linear wetland. As
sufficient hydric soil indicators were not identified within the ditch, it was determine to
be a non jurisdictional feature.
3

Nationwide Permit No.3 /Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357 -13 -002
Northoark Pond Dam Repairs. Charlotte. N.C. February 22. 2013
Upland slopes along the edges of Northpark Pond and Wetland WA were primarily
composed of mixed hardwoods dominated by oaks (Quercus sp.), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and loblolly pine (Pious taeda) with an understory dominated
by beech (Fagus grandifolia), (Photo 12).
A completed USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form is included in
Appendix III. Completed DWQ Stream Identification Forms for each stream and
USACE Wetland Determination Forms for Wetland WA, its adjacent upland and the non -
jurisdictional ditch are included in Appendix IV.
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
The project will involve the excavation of the existing unstable embankment dam and the
construction of a new dam built to more accommodate stable dimensions and
specifications, including a seepage drain at the toe of its slope. The new dam will be of
slightly larger dimensions and will extend slightly father into the existing location of
Northpark Pond. This will result in 0.01 acres of permanent loss of open waters due to
the additional fill placement. An additional 0.13 acres of temporary impact to the open
water portion of Northpark Pond will also be required in order to provide equipment
access for dam excavation and replacement and to install the temporary dikes that will be
used to maintain a dry work area.
The remains of the existing failed concrete and riprap spillway will be removed and it
will be replaced with a weirwall -type spillway structure. The proposed spillway will
flow through the new embankment via 701f of 54 -inch reinforced concrete pipe. An 18-
foot byl4 -foot riprap apron will be installed at the outfall of this pipe to dissipate now
and transition into the current stream channel. Replacement of the spillway structure will
result in permanent impact to 921f of Stream S 1.
The proposed outfall structure is designed to maintain a normal pool elevation of 765.3
ft., which is slightly below the current pool elevation of 765.5 ft. This slight reduction in
pool elevation is not expected to result in a quantifiable reduction in the extent of
jurisdictional features on site as the small amount of open water areas exposed by the
reduced pool would be expected to transition into emergent wetland.
The proposed project designs and the associated jurisdictional impacts are summarized
on Figure 4. Complete plans for this project, including construction phasing, spillway
details, and dam cross sections can be downloaded at the following location:
http: / /goo. gl /JJB2A
PROTECTED SPECIES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Protected Species
S &ME's consideration of potential protected species habitat began with a review of
existing records obtained from federal and state sources. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS) list of federally protected species (updated September 22, 2010) was
0

Nationwide Permit No.3 /Request for Jurisdictional Determination S &ME Project No. 1357 -13 -002
Northoark Pond Dam Repairs. Charlotte. N.C. February 22. 2013
consulted for a listing of protected species documented within Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina. This review identified four protected species, three plants and one
animal. Listed flora and fauna and their federal rank and county status are identified in
Table 1. Explanations of rankings are included at the end of the table.
Table 1: Federally Protected Flora and Fauna Summary
Species
Federal Rank"
County Status
Echinacea laevigata
E
Current
Smooth coneflower
Helianthus schweinitzii
E
Current
Schweinitz's sunflower
Lasmigona decorata
E
Historical
Carolina heelsplitter
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Historical
E = Endangered
As part of the protected species review, S &ME also reviewed the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) files of Element
Occurrence (EO) and Natural Heritage Areas available from NC OneMap. This review
found no extant EOs of federally protected species on record within a two -mile radius of
the project area.
S &ME completed a field reconnaissance of the project area on February 12, 2013. The
project area was identified as consisting of open water, adjacent forested and emergent
wetland and mixed hardwood upland. The area within the proposed limits of disturbance
is primarily composed of the existing dam embankment which is partly within a narrow
powerline right -of -way (ROW). Though powerline ROWS can be preferred habit for the
three plant species listed, the ROW embankment was densely vegetated with blackberry
(Rubus sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and no potential specimens of the three species were identified. It should be
noted that since the field survey was performed prior to leaf -out and outside of the
flowering season of smooth coneflower and Schweinitz's sunflower, it is not possible to
confirm the absence of these species, though based on the dense presence of other
vegetation within the potential habitat area, the marginal habitat quality, and the absence
EOs within the vicinity, the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect these
species.
Though the Carolina heelsplitter is listed (historically) for Mecklenburg County, the
receiving drainages of the project (McIntyre Creek and Long Creek) have no documented
occurrences of Carolina heelsplitter and are not part of its designated critical habitat.
Additionally, the area of McIntyre Creek (Stream S 1) to be impacted is of very poor
habitat quality for Carolina heelsplitter as it is largely covered by the ruins of the old
concrete spillway or scoured down to hardpan clay.
A copy of this NWP No. 3 application will be provided to the USFWS - Asheville Field
Office.
5

Nationwide Permit No.3 /Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357 -13 -002
Northoark Pond Dam Repairs. Charlotte. N.C. February 22. 2013
Cultural Resources
A copy of this NWP No. 3 application will be provided to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), requesting that they review their records regarding
cultural, archaeological, or historical resources in or near the project area and to provide
written comments regarding the interests of their agency. A review of the SHPO GIS
Web Service indicated that there were no properties currently listed or determined
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within a one mile radius of
the project.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and have been limited
to the areas necessary to safely replace the failed outfall and potentially hazardous dam
with a more stable outfall system. The length of the proposed piped outfall structure is
approximately equivalent to the length of the failed concrete and riprap spillway. The
proposed rip rap apron length is the minimum amount recommended by storm water
construction guidelines to provide effective dissipation of storm now energy and protect
the downstream channel.
To prevent sedimentation of downstream portions of Stream S 1, construction will be
conducted in the dry. This will be achieved by first dewatering the pond using pumps
and /or siphons and through the use of dikes and pump - arounds during construction.
Temporary erosion and sediment control measures placed in waters will be removed and
the original grade restored upon completion of the project.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Following construction, disturbed areas adjacent to the work site will be restored to
original grade and elevation. Appropriate erosion and sediment control practices will be
implemented to meet water quality turbidity standards. Best Management Practices
employed for the project will be in compliance with the most recent version of the "North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual," and the local
governing authority. Impacts have been avoided and minimized, and appropriate
measures will be taken during construction to allow flow and circulation patterns of
waters of the U.S. to remain unaffected. After construction, disturbed areas will be
appropriately seeded and restored.
The proposed project will not result in additional impervious surface or additional fill
within a FEMA floodway.
MITIGATION
Based on conversations with the USACE for similar projects, we anticipate that
mitigation will not be required for this project due to minimal area affected, the already
highly degraded status of impacted channel, and as appropriate avoidance and
minimization procedures have been implemented during the design phase of the project.
0

Nationwide Permit No.3 /Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357 -13 -002
Northoark Pond Dam Repairs. Charlotte. N.C. February 22. 2013
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your written
concurrence with authorization of this project under NWP 3. If you have questions or
require additional information, please feel free to contact us at 704.523.4726.
Sincerely,
poe�
D. David Homans Darrin M. Peine, QEP
Project Scientist Natural Resources Department Manager
i� t r�►?�TT — �Tu � �
f Julie Bennett - Hudel, P.G. LEED AP
Senior Reviewer
Reviewed and Authorized by:
Isaac Hinson, P.W.S.
Wetland Specialist
Charlotte Storm Water Services
Attachments
cc: Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office
SHPO, Raleigh
7

FIGURES
• Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map
• Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map
• Figure 3 - 2010 Aerial Photograph / Approximate Waters of
the U.S.
• Figure 4 - Proposed Project Impacts

• / (,asl
y!}
' � • m }+ A R i a-o4 ,� �� � �j aya` =pry I � I V
■..�_
■ pr j 4 l ..'i « *�toa +KSN4ik.F■a * ! .• �w.," ti - ■ 1:. LTT
s _ jJ '■
Lu j� ) ■
:� ,+ *� / , ar µ ». �. ` � *.fr ■�- _E_vanshire -Dr i� .. � i:.,.•
r7{ ■� _.� +4 + ■'tt Bellal_VistaCt'
FL
ova * a #
■ +Iw ^■ may. ■i.. r �s!o ` r ? ��aa ,,., _. +� -
I� .� .. } }.h� rte■ � + .., ,L � ■, i� . ". • - T >, •r•S��.' '�}- •.J;�"
Sri } *y +�C:'.. ■ R� ;o_ ^c L;i I , .• i�
P-
—'' �7 -�. "•
♦, ] i• '.ti �� siwd�r�" _-� a �. �' �' t �5borough'Ct
_ .. y i `L._ � .? i � � � l + � O -" ��� ��j �.. • queer � �t �� . } S 1 ��
■ P f ■ � „'.. �7 /' _fit: � 1 �'` � Jl .
L ■ � 0 �
y�O, :�,,� _ � * •��� � her � �, �.
f � ` ❑ ate. .. b -
� i } i � e � 0q _ . ' "� C' : 4" 4 r' '� � o tir_Q-• , � y_ a.r, �.e^`., ..
--
ro • M 66 f �srllll" 1 � � 14 �
It o
LN
0 06
} l .. ■ - f. N I -77 Exit 16
5.'_ F28 fi
—> < P- auline= n i0 J f r•
R Sunset:
Glenlea Commo
`I hsr � _r t �5� D and _ 'tl �l�C =� r �
�. - ■ P
■ ■ ��N If7� Exit 16 Ra, �'
Tan er!!f`Park D
r,
r� *- � s* M��i Oc ' f �Pj�F°��•L �l �?I k�stre�Ct ■ .���,
.� ■ 820' 0\h\O1'R .6,' . ■ ■ J;.
r o. '. ,000 1 2,000 co
F�el i ■: eUinger_Cr�r
REFERENCE: 1993 DERITA [NC] 1:24,000 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP i +
PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY y
OTHERUSES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S& ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ;` Approximate ProectArea
ANY DECISION MADE OR ANYACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. s }� pp
SCALE: 1 „ _ 1'000 , FIGURE NO.
DATE: 02 -19 -13 tS&ME USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP n
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY: DDH NORTHPARK POND L
WWMMEINC.COM DAM REPAIRS
L 1357_13_nn? ENGINEERING LICENSE NO: F -0176 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

Non - Jurisdictional Ditch
Stream Stream 1 (McIntyre Creek)
Perennial RPW
♦ Approx. 173 LF in the Project Area
Concrete
spillway ruins
Northpark Pond
Jurisdictional Impoundment
Approx. 1.39 Acres
Stream 2
.� Perennial RPW
�+`� .•,. Approx. 312LF
in the Project Area
Wetland WA
PEM /PFO Wetland
G Approx. 0.86 Acres
in the Project Area '
Photo Locations
Upland
F
Routine Wetland Data Points stream 2a
Intermittent RPW
Intermittent Stream (RPW) ' Approx.
in the Projecc t Ar Area E2
Perennial Stream (RPW) stream 3 o
Perennial RPW Q
Open Water Impoundment Approx. 157LF a
in the Project Area
® Wetland
�-
Project Parcel
0
REFERENCE: 2010 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH,
JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WERE RECORDED IN THE FIELD USING GPS EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF SUB -METER -
ACCURACY. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE OR NCDWQ. PLEASE NOTE r
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, ORANYOTHER USES. 0 100 Zoo o
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S &ME,INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY o
DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet o
0
SCALE: 1 -100 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH / FIGURE NO.
DATE: 02_20_13 tS&ME APPROXIMATE WATERS OF THE U.S. 3
DRAWN BY: DDH NORTHPARK POND
WWW.SMEINC.COM DAM REPAIRS
PROJECT NO:
L 1357 -13 -002 ENGINEERING LICENSE NO: F -0176 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

1
x
F Proposed replacement rt f f-
emabankment dam contours
Northpark Pond
x 0.13 acres of Temporary Impact
_o° ■ % fa�oo Due to construction access and installation of
. _
temporary dikes for work area de- watering
s x 1 f f
Northpark Pond
0.01 acres of Permanent Fill Impact w r
Due to installation of new weirwall intake
and minor expansion of the dam footprint r� – •" #
f r
L•OD D L•,
Im
y Proposed toe drain x Proposed weirwall
type intake structure
ao„
ya 1 f/ �FC Proposed 54" RCP
spillway pipe
Stream S1
" 92 LF of Permanent Impact Proposed . 00 ,
Due to installation of new spillway pipe s rr Existing concrete spillway ruins
as and riprap outfall ;. ! r (to be removed and replaced with
new piped spillway structure)
t
Proposed 18' X14'
nprap outfall
Limit of Disturbance
Perennial Stream (RPW)
Open Water Impoundment
■ ! Proposed Stream Impacts
Proposed Open Water Impacts:
REFERENCE: '
70% CONSTRUCTION PLANS WERE PROVIDED BY WK DICKSON. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES Permanent
ONLY. IT IS NOT M EANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY.
S &M E, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS
INFORMATION. Temporary
SCALE. 1 „ _ 40' FIGURE NO.
DATE: 02 -20 -13 tS&ME PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
DRAWN BY: DDH NORTHPARK POND 4
WWW.SMEINC.COM DAM REPAIRS
PROJECT NO:
L 1357 -13 -002 ENGINEERING LICENSE NO F -0176 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA A

APPENDIX I
Pre - Construction Notification

O�OFW A r���F9QG
b
O <
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
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:
Northpark Pond Dam Repairs
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Northpark Property Owners Association / Childress Klein Properties
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Book 037 page 37
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d.
Street address:
301 South Colleg St #2800
3e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC, 28201 -6021
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: Municipal Stormwater Utility
4b.
Name:
Isaac Hinson, PWS
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Charlotte Storm Water Services
4d.
Street address:
600 East Fourth Street
4e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202
4f.
Telephone no.:
704 - 336 -4495
4g.
Fax no.:
704- 336 -6586
4h.
Email address:
ihinson @ci.charlotte.nc.us
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
D. David Homans
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
S &ME, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e.
Telephone no.:
704 - 523 -4726
5f.
Fax no.:
704- 525 -3953
5g.
Email address:
dhomans @smeinc.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):
Parcel ID No. 03737309
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.31421 Longitude: - 80.85561
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size:
Parcel = 6.31 acres; Project Area = 0.99 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
McIntyre Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
11- 120 -3 -(1) (McIntyre Creek), Class C
2c. River basin:
Upper Catawba River Basin (HUC 03050101)
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 project parcel is composed of an impoundment of McIntyre Creek (referred to as Northpark Pond), adjacent wooded
areas, sanitary sewer easements, and the pond's earthen embankment dam. The proposed project area is limited to the
area immediately surrounding the Northpark Pond dam. The vicinity around the project parcel is made up of medium
density commercial office park and medium density residential development.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Wetland WA = 0.86 acres; Northpark Pond (open water) = 1.39 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Stream S1= 173 If; Stream S2= 312 If; Stream S2a= 95 If; Stream S3= 157 If
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed repair project is to replace the current failed spillway with a new weirwall outlet structure and
spillway. Additionally, the current earthen embankment dam was determined to be at long -term risk of instability; as such,
it is proposed that the dam be excavated and rebuilt to more stable dimensions and specifications.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will involve the excavation of the existing unstable embankment dam and the construction of a new dam built
to more stable dimensions and specifications and including a seepage drain at the toe of its slope. The new dam will be
of slightly larger dimensions and will extend slightly father into the existing location of Northpark Pond. The remains of
the existing failed concrete and riprap spillway will be removed and it will be replaced with a weirwall -type spillway
structure. The proposed spillway will flow through the new embankment via 70 If of 54 -inch reinforced concrete pipe. An
18 -foot by14 -foot riprap apron will be installed at the outfall of this pipe to dissipate flow and transition into the existing
stream channel.
The proposed outfall structure is designed to maintain a normal pool elevation of 765.3, which is slightly below the current
pool elevation of 765.5. Construction will involve standard earthmoving equipment (track -hoes, front end loaders, dump
trucks, etc.).
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
F1 Yes F1 No ®Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
El Preliminary El 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 3 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 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
® Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary (T)
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ 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 will be impacted by the proposed project
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
Installation of new
S1 ®P ❑ T
pond outfall
McIntyre Creek
® PER
® Corps
8
92
spillway and
❑ INT
® DWQ
riprap apron
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
92
3i. Comments: New piped spillway outfall is primarily within the footprint of the failed concrete and riprap spillway
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
01 ® P ❑ T
Northpark Pond
Additional fill associated with
Pond
0.01 acres
replacement dam / spillway
02 ❑ P ®T
Northpark Pond
construction access / temporary
Pond
0.13 acres
dike installation
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: .
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the 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
K Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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
re uired?
B1 ❑P ❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and have been limited to the areas necessary to safely
replace the failed outfall and potentially hazardous dam with a more stable outfall system. The length of the proposed piped
outfall structure is approximately equivalent to the length of the failed concrete and riprap spillway. The proposed rip rap apron
length is the minimum amount recommended by storm water construction guidelines to provide effective dissipation of storm
flow energy and protect the downstream channel.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
To prevent sedimentation of downstream portions of Stream S1, construction will be conducted in the dry. This will be
achieved by first dewatering the pond using pumps and /or siphons and through the use of dikes and pump - arounds during
construction. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures placed in waters will be removed and the original grade
restored upon completion 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
project?
❑ 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 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a.
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6.
Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by 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
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g.
If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h.
Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
N/A %
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The proposed project is a municipal
maintenance project that will not result in additional 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
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ 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 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
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)?
1 c.
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.
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.
The proposed project will not generate wastewater.
Page 10 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
H Yes ❑ No
impacts?
F-1 Raleigh
5c.
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
H Asheville
5d.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A copy of this application will be provided to the USFWS -Asheville Field Office. The project area and vicinity are not
located in a Designated Critical Habitat. Review of Element Occurrences on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) files found that there were no known extant occurences of federally threatened or
endangered species within a 2 -mile radius of the proposed project. Field review did not idicate the presence of any
federally protected species though it should be noted that since the field survey was performed prior to leaf -out and
outside of the flowering season of smooth coneflower and Schweinitz's sunflower, it is not possible to confirm the
absence of these species. Based on the dense presence of other vegetation within the project area, the marginal habitat
quality, and the absence EOs within the vicinity, the proposed project is not likely to impact any of these species.
6.
Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a.
Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes H No
6b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/efh_coral/ims/viewer.htm
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 H 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?
A copy of this application will be provided to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). A review of
the HPOWEB GIS Service indicated that there were no properties currently listed or determined eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places within a one mile radius of the project.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a.
Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes H No
8b.
If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c.
What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? The proposed project will be constructed outside of the
100 -year FEMA floodplain. http: // polaris.mecklenburgcountync.gov
February 22,
Isaac Hinson, PWS
2012
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/ ent's Signature
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

APPENDIX II
Site Photographs

Z
1 View of Stream S1 (McIntyre Creek) Looking
downstream below the proposed outfall area.
n
View of Stream S2 looking downstream as it enters
the project parcel.
NEW
:'
View of Stream S3 looking upstream prior to its
entering the project parcel.
2 View of Stream S1 as it flows under the existing
broken concrete spillwav which it has undermined.
4 View looking upstream along Stream S2a, an
intermittent side channel in the floodplain along
Stream S2.
6 View looking downstream along Stream S3 as it flows
through Wetland WA.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Northpark Pond Repairs
Charlotte, North Carolina
Photo Page 1 of 2
.fay
L
f nt`-
F
Rs
7
N
2 View of Stream S1 as it flows under the existing
broken concrete spillwav which it has undermined.
4 View looking upstream along Stream S2a, an
intermittent side channel in the floodplain along
Stream S2.
6 View looking downstream along Stream S3 as it flows
through Wetland WA.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Northpark Pond Repairs
Charlotte, North Carolina
Photo Page 1 of 2

7 View looking south from the dam across Northpark
Pond.
8 View of the dam and associated small powerline
easement, which is proposed to be replaced.
10 Typical view of the mixed forested area within Wetland
WA.
View looking upslope along the non jurisdictional 12 View of typical mixed hardwood upland areas that
drainage ditch than runs directly below the dam. occur throughout the project parcel.
Taken by: DDH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Checked by: DMP Northpark Pond Repairs
Charlotte, North Carolina
Date Taken: 2.12.2013
Project No.: 1357 -13 -002 Photo Page 2 of 2
A"aA yi+
�tr
tX
b fu LCFAft� -�dN
01 r-
8 View of the dam and associated small powerline
easement, which is proposed to be replaced.
10 Typical view of the mixed forested area within Wetland
WA.
View looking upslope along the non jurisdictional 12 View of typical mixed hardwood upland areas that
drainage ditch than runs directly below the dam. occur throughout the project parcel.
Taken by: DDH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Checked by: DMP Northpark Pond Repairs
Charlotte, North Carolina
Date Taken: 2.12.2013
Project No.: 1357 -13 -002 Photo Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX III
• Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form

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 L• BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:ASHEVILLE FIELD REGULATORY OFFICE
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: NORTHPARK POND MAINTENANCE PROJECT
State:NORTH CAROLINA County/parish/borough: MECKLENBURG City: CHARLOTTE
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.31421 ° 1, Long. 80.85561 ° �.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: MCINTYRE CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: CATAWBA RIVER / LAKE NORMAN
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): UPPER CATAWBA (03050101)
® Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is /are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION IL• SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There M "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There M "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
qNon -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: — 737 linear feet: 2 -10 width (ft) and/or 1.39 acres.
Wetlands: 0.86 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: A DITCH BELOW THE DAM WAS IDENTIFED WHICH DID NOT HAVE A CLEAR OWHM OR
INDICATION OF FLOW AND DID NOT HAVE HYDRIC SOILS (SEE DATA FORM, APPENDIX M.
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally'
(e.g., typically months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IILA.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section IH.D.I.; otherwise, see Section HLB 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 HLD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.11.1 for
the tributary, Section II111.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section II111.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IH.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 10 -20 acres
Drainage area: 10 -20 Pick List
Average annual rainfall: 43 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through I tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5 -10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5 -10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or le" aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWs: STREAM S2A (SEASONAL RPW) — STREAM S2 — NORTI]PARK POND
STREAM S1 (MCINTYRE CREEK) — LONG CREEK — CATAWBA RIVER/LAKE NORMAN.
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

Tributary stream order, if known: FIRST.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apps
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 2 feet
Average depth: 0.5 feet
Average side slopes: a
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type /% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: SOMEWHAT UNSTABLE DUE TO
FLASHY FLOWS COMING FROM STORMWATER RETENTION AREA OUTFALL.
Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes. Explain: LIMITED PRESENCE DUE TO LIMITED FLOW.
Tributary geometry: 111ktavely straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 3 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: -
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: LIKELY FLOW DURING WET SEASONS AND FOLLOWING RAINS.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: E. Explain findings: SOIL BASED EVIDENCE OF A HIGH WATER TABLE WAS IDENTIFIED.
❑ 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.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑ physical markings /characteristics
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datum,
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation lines /changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film, water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: POTENTIAL FOR PARKING LOT POLLUTANTS AS IS PRIMARILY FED BY STORM SEWER
SYSTEM.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): MIXED HARDWOOD.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: HABITAT FOR AQUATIC LIFE ADAPTED TO INTERMITTENT
CONDITIONS.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: &"
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Fck List. 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 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from:
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the � floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil fihn on surface, water quality, general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): .
❑ Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain: .
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and /or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section IILD:
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
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
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: STREAMS S1, S2 AND S3 POSSESSED GEOMORPHIC FEATURES CONSISTENT WITH A
CHANNEL EXPERIENCING YEAR -ROUND (PERENNIAL) FLOW (SEE ATTACHED NC DWQ STREAM
CLASSIFICATION FORMS, SCORES: S1 =36.5; S2 =32.5; S3 =35).
® 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: STREAM S2A POSSESSED GEOMORPHIC FEATURES CONSISTENT WITH A SEASONALLY FLOWING
(INTERMITTENT) CHANNEL (SEE ATTACHED NC DWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORM, SCORE = 20.5).

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: — 737 linear feet 2 -10 width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non -RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Q Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
19 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 WA WAS DELINEATED IN THE FIELD AS DIRECTLY ABUTTING
PERENNIAL CHANNELS S2 AND S3 AND NORTHPARK POND WHICH IS AN IMPOUNDMENT OF
PERENNIAL CHANNEL Sl.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section I1I.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.86 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III. C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III. C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
IT Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) :'o
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps /EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

❑ 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.
NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Irl If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non - jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non - jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
II Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: S &ME, INC.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1993 DERITA[NC] 1:24,000 QUAD SHEET (FIGURE 2).
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA /FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): 2010 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (FIGURE 3).
or ® Other (Name & Date): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (2 -12- 2013).
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable /supporting case law:
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):

APPENDIX IV
Wetland Determination Data Forms
N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Stream Identification
Forms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project /Site: Northpark Pond Dam Repairs City /County: Mecklenburg County Sampling Date: 2/12/2013
Applicant /Owner: Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland WA
Investigator(s): D. David Homans Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Lake edge Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0.5%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MRLA 136 Lat: 35.312976 Long: -80.854464 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Cecil Sandy Clay Loam NWI PFO
classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
✓ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
✓ Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
✓ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
✓ Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
✓ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 6
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Wetland WA
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Salix nigra
30
YES
OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
2 Liriodendron tulipifera 15 NO FACU
Betula nigra 10 NO FACW
3. g ra
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A /B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
55 = Total Cover
Sapling
/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
Carpinus caroliniana
30
YES
FAC
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
FACU species 130 x 4 = 520
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 145 (A) 565 (B)
P 3.90
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2 Ligustrum sinense 20 YES FACU
3 Sambucus nigra 5 NO FACU
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 NO FACW
5
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is < -3.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
51
60
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1
Impatiens capensis
30
YES
FACW
—
2
Persicaria lapathifolia
20
YES
FACW
3
Juncus effusus
15
NO
FACW
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4
Carex lurida
10
NO
OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
Fragaria virginiana
10
NO
FACU
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
85
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
0
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Wetland WA
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Lo C2
Texture Remarks
0 -4 10YR 4/3 100
clay loam
4 -16+ 10YR 4/2 90
5 YR 4/6 10 C PL
clay loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
✓ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project /Site: Northpark Pond Dam Repairs City /County: Mecklenburg County Sampling Date: 2/12/2013
Applicant /Owner: Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland WA
Investigator(s): D. David Homans Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Lake edge Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0.5%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MRLA 136 Lat: 35.312976 Long: -80.854464 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Cecil Sandy Clay Loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
✓ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
✓ Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
✓ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
✓ Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
✓ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 6
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Wetland WA
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Salix nigra
30
YES
OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
2 Liriodendron tulipifera 15 NO FACU
ra
Betula nigra 10 NO FACW
3. g
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A /B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
55 = Total Cover
Sapling
/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
Carpinus caroliniana
30
YES
FAC
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
FACU species 130 x 4 = 520
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 145 (A) 565 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.90
2 Ligustrum sinense 20 YES FACU
3 Sambucus nigra 5 NO FACU
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 NO FACW
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is < -3.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5�
60
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb
Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1
Impatiens capensis
30
YES
FACW
—
2
Persicaria lapathifolia
20
YES
FACW
3
Juncus effusus
15
NO
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4
Carex lurida
10
NO
OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
Fragaria virginiana
10
NO
FACU
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
85
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
0
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Wetland WA
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Lo C2
Texture Remarks
0 -4 10YR 4/3 100
clay loam
4 -16+ 10YR 4/2 90
5 YR 4/6 10 C PL
clay loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
✓ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project /Site: Northpark Pond Dam Repairs City /County: Mecklenburg County Sampling Date: 2/12/2013
Applicant /Owner: Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland WA
Investigator(s): D. David Homans Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Lake edge Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0.5%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MRLA 136 Lat: 35.312976 Long: -80.854464 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Cecil Sandy Clay Loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
✓ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
✓ Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
✓ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
✓ Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
✓ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 6
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Wetland WA
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Salix nigra
30
YES
OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
2 Liriodendron tulipifera 15 NO FACU
ra
Betula nigra 10 NO FACW
3. g
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A /B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
55 = Total Cover
Sapling
/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
Carpinus caroliniana
30
YES
FAC
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
FACU species 130 x 4 = 520
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 145 (A) 565 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.90
2 Ligustrum sinense 20 YES FACU
3 Sambucus nigra 5 NO FACU
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 NO FACW
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is < -3.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5�
60
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb
Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1
Impatiens capensis
30
YES
FACW
—
2
Persicaria lapathifolia
20
YES
FACW
3
Juncus effusus
15
NO
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4
Carex lurida
10
NO
OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
Fragaria virginiana
10
NO
FACU
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
85
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
0
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Wetland WA
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Lo C2
Texture Remarks
0 -4 10YR 4/3 100
clay loam
4 -16+ 10YR 4/2 90
5 YR 4/6 10 C PL
clay loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
✓ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification or Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
Date: 2/13/2013
Project: Northpark Pond Repairs
Latitude: 35.31421 °N
Evaluator: S &ME (D. David Homans)
Site /Stream ID: S1
Longitude: 80.85561-W
Total Points
Stream is at least intermittent 36.5
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
Stream Determination:
Perennial
County:
Mecklenburg
Other e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 21 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0.5
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
2
1.5
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool
ripple-pool sequence
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6 >
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
3
2
5. Active /relic floodplain
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Head cuts
0
9. Grade control
0
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
0
Yes = 3
a. artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9.5 )
12. Presence of baseflow
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1.5
boil based evidence ot high water ta e .
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6 >
18. Fibrous roots in channel
3
19. Rooted plants in channel
3
20. Macrobenthos
0
21. Aquatic mollusks
0
22. Fish
0
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
0
25. Algae
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
None /Other = 0
*perennial stream smay also be indetified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification or Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
Date: 2/13/2013
Project: Northpark Pond Repairs
Latitude: 35.31307 °N
Evaluator: S &ME (D. David Homans)
Site /Stream ID: S2
Longitude: 80.85376 °W
Total Points
Stream is at least intermittent 32.5
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
Stream Determination:
Perennial
County:
Mecklenburg
Other e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 16.5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
2
1.5
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool
ripple-pool sequence
1
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5 >
4. Particle size of stream substrate
1
5. Active /relic floodplain
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Head cuts
0
1
9. Grade control
0
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
1
a. artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 11 )
12. Presence of baseflow
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1.5
boil based evidence ot high water ta e .
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5 >
18. Fibrous roots in channel
2
19. Rooted plants in channel
2
20. Macrobenthos
0
21. Aquatic mollusks
0
22. Fish
0
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
0
25. Algae
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
None /Other = 0
*perennial stream smay also be indetified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification or Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
Date: 2/13/2013
Project: Northpark Pond Repairs
Latitude: 35.31304 °N
Evaluator: S &ME (D. David Homans)
Site /Stream ID: S2a
Longitude: 80.8539 °W
Total Points
Stream is at least intermittent 20.5
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
Stream Determination:
Intermittent
County:
Mecklenburg
Other e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 8.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1
1
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool
ripple-pool sequence
1
C. Biology (Subtotal = 3.5 )
4. Particle size of stream substrate
1
1
5. Active /relic floodplain
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
8. Head cuts
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
a. artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8.5 )
12. Presence of baseflow
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
14. Leaf litter
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1
boil based evidence ot high water ta e .
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 3.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in channel
1
19. Rooted plants in channel
2
20. Macrobenthos
0
21. Aquatic mollusks
0
22. Fish
0
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
0
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
None /Other = 0
*perennial stream smay also be indetified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification or Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
Date: 2/13/2013
Project: Northpark Pond Repairs
Latitude: 35.31274 °N
Evaluator: S &ME (D. David Homans)
Site /Stream ID: S3
Longitude: 80.8543 °W
Total Points
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_19 or perennial if >_ 5
Stream Determination:
Perennial
County:
Mecklenburg
Other e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 17.5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
2
1.5
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
2
1.5
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool
ripple-pool sequence
2
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.5 )
4. Particle size of stream substrate
1
2
5. Active /relic floodplain
19. Rooted plants in channel
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
20. Macrobenthos
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
21. Aquatic mollusks
o
3
8. Head cuts
o
22. Fish
o
9. Grade control
23. Crayfish
1
10. Natural valley
24. Amphibians
o
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = o
25. Algae
a. artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 11 )
12. Presence of baseflow
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
14. Leaf litter
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1.5
boil based evidence ot high water ta e .
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in channel
2
19. Rooted plants in channel
2
20. Macrobenthos
o
21. Aquatic mollusks
o
22. Fish
o
23. Crayfish
o
24. Amphibians
o
25. Algae
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
OBL = 1.5
*perennial stream smay also be indetified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: