20061210 Ver 2_401 Application_20080208

,l ~..~
~..
i
February 4, 2008
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR/NCDWQ FEg 1 2 2008
Wetlands/401 Water Quality Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center pE~.WATER"QUAUN
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 y~p~pggNOSTO~ATERBRAMC~
RE: Pre-Construction Notification -Little Sugar Creek Kings Drive Reach- Stream
Enhancement and Greenway Project, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find enclosed five copies of our PCN package for the subject project. The application
package is being resubmitted in its entirety, as the current 401 permit (DWQ #06-1210) for the
project expires March 18, 2008. No changes have been made to the design of the project since
the initial permit was issued. We have included the following supporting data:
• PCN form,
• vicinity map,
• existing conditions and design summary,
• USAGE jurisdictional determination form,
• photo log,
• 11 x 17 copy of the plan set, and
• existing 404 (SAW 2006-40247-360) and 401 permits (DWQ #06-1210) for the project.
The goals of the project are to daylight portions of the creek currently under concrete box
culverts, stabilize the creek banks with native vegetation, install in-stream boulder structures to
improve habitat and provide grade control, excavate a floodplain bench, and establish a greenway
adjacent to the riparian corridor.
The same information has been submitted to the Asheville Regulatory Office of the US Army
Corps of Engineers. If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
~(Jl~t-,
Andrea M. Spangler
Senior Environmental Planner
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. ~ 1430 South Mint Street ~ Unit 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USAGE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: (^ ^ ~,
II. Applicant Information 0 ~ `-' 1.~~~y D
1. Owner/Applicant Information FEQ 1 2 2008
Name: Crystal Taylor ~rr~-WAT~c A~awoNCt+
Mailing Address: Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services ~~~DSTO~w
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: Crvstal.Taylor(a~mecklenbur count r~ic.gov
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Andrea Spangler
Company Affiliation: Wildlands En ineering, Inc.
Mailing Address: 1430 S. Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte NC 28203
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:~704) 332-3306
E-mail Address: asnangler(a~wildlandsinc.com
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Little Sugar Creek Greenway -Kings Drive section
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 125-213-07, 125-213-10, 124-213-06,
125-213-29, 125-213-28, 125-213-26, 125-213-05, 125-213-27 125-213-25 125-213-23
125-213-24, 125-213-21, 125-213-30 125-213-31 125-213-32 125-213-33 125-213-34
125-213-35, 125-213-16A
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):___North of the City of
Charlotte: I-77 South, Take the Wilkinson Blvd/I-277 E/ John Belk Frwy/ US-74 E/ West
Blvd exit 9, Mere onto I-277 N / US-74 E via exit 9B, Take the Kenilworth Ave / NC-16 S /
Third St./ Fourth St. exit 2-A, Take the Kenilworth Ave ramp Turn right onto Kenilworth
Ave., Turn Left onto Baxter St. (See Vicinity Map and Site Map)
The Kings Drive eenway site is bounded by Baxter Street to the north Morehead Street to
the south, Kings Drive to the east, and commercial and residential properties to the west.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.2113832 °N -80.8366863 °W -Upstream Point
35.20571 °N -80.8368536 °W -Downstream Point
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Little Sugar Creek
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 2 of 9

8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project site is located just south of uptown Charlotte.
The parcels were purchased approximately seven ergo, and prior business buildings
have since been demolished; paved parking areas still remain. This project will decrease the
impervious area of the site.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Removal
of the former Bank of America (BOA) parking deck currently over the creek, removal of the
685 LF box culvert behind the former McDondald's and Taco Bell sites, removal of the
former Morehead Station parking deck, addition of a pedestrian bridge connecting the
proposed egr enway to Harding Place, grading and planting bank slopes with native riparian
species, excavation and planting. of a floodplain bench, installation of storm water BMP
wetlands on the floodplain bench, excavation of riffle and pool bedform features and
installation of in-stream boulder structures. A trackhoe will be used for in-stream work.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Primary goals include reclaiming the natural and
beneficial functions of the floodplain and stream channel while establishing an adjacent
eenway and park amenity.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
'The Little Sugar Creek -Kings Drive project was issued a 404 permit (SAW 2006-40247-360)
and a 401 permit (DWQ #06-1210) on September 11, 2006 and September 8, 2006 respectively
These permits will expire March 18, 2008. Construction of the project is not scheduled to begin
until after March 18, 2008. There have been no changes to the project design or potential
impacts from what were originally submitted to the two agencies on July 24 2006. The two
existing permits are attached.
V. Future Project Plans
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 3 of 9

Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A. Future plans for stream enhancement work are bein developed on two upstream reaches,
but construction document packages are being developed for these reaches under separate
contracts.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: "da~ghting" 1,065 LF of creek that
currently flows through a series of three box culverts, as well as stabilizing 1,135 LF of
channel that is currently open, but has steep banks vegetated by non-native and invasive
species such as kudzu and mimosa.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year
Floodplain Nearest
Stream Impact
(acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) (yes/no) (linear feet)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 4 of 9

4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acres e, multi ly length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Little Sugar Creek Enhancement Perennial 50' 2,200 2.5

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 2,200 2.5
Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List t
he cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the roject
Stream Impact (acres): 2.5
Wetland Impact (acres):
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres)
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 2,200
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 5 of 9

Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA
NA
Expected pond surface area: NA
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The project constitutes a positive impact enhancing stream function and habitat by improving
bed features in the stream. Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion
and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manuel
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USAGE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that maybe appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USAGE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide html.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 9

1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federaUstate) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 9

map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* I Impact I I Required
Zone ~~, ,,.,.-o ~ o+~ Multiplier
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
Approximately 7.6 acres of impervious area exist on this site in its present conditions. The
proposed design will reduce the impervious area to approximately 1 acre The proposed project
represents a significant reduction in impervious area.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 9

, , ~~ ~ .. ~
• /
• XIY. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ), ~ . ' ,
,,
,, I
.ti i
i +
1 ~
~~ i
1
.i. .. • • ;
Will this project (based on past and reasonably•anticipated ftuure impacts)..re'stiilt••ip';~dtlttiotkaT' ,
development, which could impact ne•~rby downstream water quality? Yes" [] , ; Ntr
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis fa aceo~dnce with • ~ '
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted' on' 4~r.vv~bgite. at •~',,
http•//h2o enr state.nc.us/newetiauds. l:f no, please provide a short narrativo c~'s`c'tilStion^__'~__ ,
No this is a stream restoration project. This fuse of project will not enco4ra~e'de~elaunlent in '•;,
the area. ~ - '
• . , ,,..
.a ~ ~ti
X`V. OtheX Circumstances (Optional): ' • • ~ ~ ~ "`
F
,,,
It is tl~e applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in ~~v~ii;e`,:;gf e~csir6d "-
construction dates to allow processing time fOr these permits. Howe err, ~¢ii"ap~Gl~arit ri~ajn' •: ,
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that rah iaipi~~ `linpits~ on,' '
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated. ~vvith'' 1/ndatig~ed an~1,
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's cotirtrol). ,
• ~ ~ ,;
' - ' ;:
• ~, , . ; '
' ~;~.
.,•'.~
,~:
.~ •

Appiicant/Agent' ignature • ~~~• °• , ,
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant`is p'rovideil:) - .
-~ '

•~I r'
~y
H` ~
~ y i
. ,
.+
~ ~ ~+,
~
, , ,
, ~
~
1
, ; ,
. ' ,
,
' F
S ,
, '' , ,. . ,
.~,
' ~ . . •/
, •~i
i ~ ..
~
' ~
<~ ,~
. '` f ~ ~ ti
.i
Wpd~teJ• l l/ll1005
G; ,
~ ;
Page 9 of9 ; ', ,

' ' a .. tir ~ . ;.'~ . > ;t '
~
TOTAL P.
02

OCT. 10.2006 8 = 29'1
140.835 P.2
U,S, ARM'Y C412FS OF ENrGYNEERS
WILMINGTON bISTRICT
Action i'D. S.AVV-20Q6-4U Cotmty: lyieckten6ttra USCrS Quad: Charlotte Fa
GENERAL Y'ERMIT (REGYONAL AND NA'ii'IONWYDE} VERIY+'YCATION
T'raperiy OWne;r / Authorized Agent: Mecklet7bt~ Caunty Storm'Water Services
Attu; Cr al Ta for
Address: 700 Nor#h Trvon Street
arlottc, NC 28202
TeIepbont: No.: X043-.
Size and location afproperty (water body, road name/number, town, eta}; This_.propo4ed iiittle Sugar
.,__. - _ _
Description of projects area and activity: This permit aathorizes excavation. in~st~lfation of ~t-strewn
natoral< Mto-ett~iaeerln~ techxdinaes.
Applicable J-aw; ®Sectioa 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344}
^ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act; 33 USC 443)
Authorization: Regional Qreneral Perms Ntuuber:
ATatioawide 1'emtit Nutnbcr: 2'1
Your work is suthorixed by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in Strict accordance with the
attached Nationwide conditions and your submitted puns. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation
teem your submitted plans may subject the petsntttee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate
legal notion.
't'his vetzflcatioa is valid cttttil ibe NWP ix modified, reissued, or revoked. Atl of the exististg NWFs are
scheduled to he modif ed, reissued, or revoked prior m 1~arch I8, 2007, it is incumbent upon you to remain
informed of changes to tilt NWPs. We wiIl issue a public nonce when the NW'ps are reissued. k~uthermore, if you
CouuAetace or are undCt contract tb ca~mmence this activity before the date dent the relevarn nationwide permit is
modified or revoked, you will have twelve (I2} months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP
tiQ wmpletc the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. If prior tv the expiration
date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or tttodified, this verification will remain
valid Wtti1 the expiration date identified below, provided it cnrnplies with all rtew aad/ox nsodified temic and
conditions. The District Engineer may, at any time. exercise his discretionary authority to modify, suspend, ar
woke a case specific activity's authorization wader and NWF.
Activities subject m Section 404 {as indicated shows} may also require au individual Section 401 'UVater Quality
Cettitieation. You should contact the NC 1ivision of Water Quality {telephone {919) 733»l 786} to determine
Section 401 requitements,
Fos aetivitias occurring within the twenty coastal counties subJeet to ragulatiaa under the Coastal Arca
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginnhtg work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal MaAagement.
This beparnneni of the Amory verification does not relieve the pemrittee of the respousibi[ity to obtain nay other
required Federal, State or local approvalsfpetmits.
If there art any questions tegaxdiag this verification, any of the conditions of the Penult, or the Corps of
engineers rebnttatory program, please roatact Amanda Jones at 828.271.7980 x231.
Corps Regvlattlry Offiefal _ attda Jones Date: September_11, 2006*
Expiration Date of Verification: March 18.2047 ~~~~~
*Date retlet:ts 45 days fratn the date a comp aetiel pplication was received,
CF: Bunk Brigineering, Attn: ~tnily Reinicker, 1447 South 'Lyon Street, Suitt 200, Charlotte, NC 28203

4~0~ W A T ~RQG
~_ ~
D ~
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Cazolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of \~ater Quality
September 8, 2006
DWQ# 06-1210
Mecklenburg County
Ms. Crystal Taylor
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services
700 North Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject: Little Sugar Creek Enhancement, Kings Dr., Charlotte
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Ms. Taylor:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact
2200 linear feet {If) of Little Sugar Creek in order to conduct the subject stream enhancement project in
Mecklenburg County, as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on July
27, 2006. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this project is covered by Water Quality
General Certification Number 3495, which can be viewed on our web site at
htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The General Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number
27 once it is issued to you by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please note that you should get any other
federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited
to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certification will expire when the associated 404 permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification. This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described
in your application. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be required to send
us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the
Certification and approval letter; and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions.
In addition to the requirements of the certification, you must also comply with the following conditions:
1. The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing once construction at the approved impact areas
has commenced.
2. Storm water discharge structures at this site shall be constructed in a manner such that the potential
receiving streams (of the discharge) will not be impacted due to sediment accumulations, scouring or erosion
of the stream banks.
3. No waste, spoils, solids, or fill of any kind shall be placed in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the
footprint of the impacts depicted in the Preconstruction Notification application. All construction activities
associated with this project shall meet, and/or exceed, those requirements specified in the most recent
version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual and shall be conducted so that no
violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. Sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavo~le, _
oft azolma
a ~...._~...
~ vucuruny
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Ave., Suite 30l Mooresville, NC 281 I S Phone (704} 663-1699 Customer Service
Internet: nCnraterquality.org FAX [phone] I-877-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Empbyer- 50% Recyded/t0% Post Consumer Paper

they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within two months of the date the Division of Land
Resources has released the project.
5. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality.
Continuing Compliance. The applicant (Mecklenburg County) shall conduct all activities in a manner so as
not to contravene any state water quality standard (including any requirements for compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of state and federal law. If DWQ
determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or
achieved use) or that state or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure
compliance, DWQ may reevaluate and modify this certification to include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before
codifying the certification, DWQ shall notify the applicant and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public
notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503, and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to the applicant in writing, shall be
provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issued pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that
conforms to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless
you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-
1699 or Ms. Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
Sincerely,
'~ G~~---
. ~~c-~i
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Ian McMillan, Wetlands Unit
MRO, Land Quality
Becky Fox, EPA
Central Files
File Copy
Emily Reinicker, Buck Eng.

LITTLE SUGAR CREEK KINGS DRIVE REACH
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
SUPPORTING DATA
PCN 401 /404 CERTIFICATION PACKAGE
Prepared For
C~~arlbrte-~~ec~+e nbu~~eJ
ST~I[i~I
t~ATE~.
Prepared By
~~~~
t ~, i ~ ~ r+. ~ ~ - f r~.a is ;
July 24, 2006
• „,~ ,•,
_.
~.
- was.. ~ ~ "~ aat"`r _ ~'` :w. ~

Little Sugar Creek Kings Drive Reach
Existing Conditions and Design Summary
Buck Engineering is developing construction documents for a stream enhancement project on
Little Sugar Creek from Morehead to Baxter Street, adjacent to Kings Drive in Charlotte, NC. This
memorandum summarizes our watershed assessment of Little Sugar Creek to the downstream
end of the project at Morehead Street.
Watershed Delineation
The project area is located in central Mecklenburg County just southwest of downtown Charlotte
in the Catawba River Basin. The drainage area of Upper Little Sugar Creek (from the headwaters
to Morehead Street) is approximately 11.7 square miles. The headwaters of the creek are located
in the northeast quadrant of Charlotte, south of I-85 and east of I-77. Figure 1 illustrates the
watershed to the project site. After flowing through the project site, Little Sugar Creek continues
south through Mecklenburg County to join Sugar Creek which continues to the Catawba River
east of Rock Hill, SC.
Land Use
The Little Sugar Creek watershed is located in a highly developed urban setting; approximately
80% of the land in the watershed has been developed. Approximately 43% of the land surface is
impervious. The land uses within the watershed include residential (47%), industrial (25%),
commercial (19%), woods (7%), and institutional (2%).
Geology
The city of Charlotte lies in the Charlotte Belt, which is a geologic zone comprised of
predominantly metavolcanic and plutonic rock types. The geology of the project area is Devonian
and Ordovician age granodiorite rock. The granodiorite is medium-grained, massive to weakly
foliated, and is comprised mainly of plagioclase and quartz (Goldsmith, 1984).
Bedrock knick points were observed in the channel near the upstream end of the project between
Baxter Street and the Bank of America branch parking lot deck. These knick points indicate the
presence of shallow bedrock and also indicate that bedrock is preventing the creek bed from
further incision or downcutting.
Soils
The soils found within the floodplain of the project site include Cecil sandy clay loam and Urban
soils. Cecil soils are typically very deep and well drained uplands soils that formed in residuum
from felsic rock. The surface layer of the soil is loamy and the subsoil is clayey. Urban soils
describe areas where the original soils have been cut, filled, graded, or paved to the extent that a
soil type can no longer be recognized. Figure 2 illustrates the soils in the project watershed.
Hydrology
The Upper Little Sugar Creek watershed is an urban watershed with a very high percentage of
impervious cover. The development and impervious cover has impaired the natural hydrologic
function of this watershed. The increase in development and impervious surface allows more
rainfall to run off the land and directly into the creek. In less developed watersheds, a greater
percentage of the rainfall is able to be absorbed by the ground and so less rainfall runs off into the
creek. Urban watersheds such as Little Sugar Creek will see higher quantities of rainfall enter the
creek at a faster rate. Urban systems are often described as "Flashy" since the stage and flow of

the creek quickly increase in response to a storm; after the storm, the peak flow can quickly pass
and the stage quickly recedes.
Little Sugar Creek's flashy response time is illustrated in Figure 3. The figure shows two 2004
storms and the stream stage response (hydrograph) to the recorded rainfall (hyetograph). The
stream gage data shown is from the USGS gage at Medical Center Drive, approximately 1,000 LF
downstream of Morehead Street. The rainfall data is from a rain gage on the Chariotte-
Mecklenburg Government Center (CMGC) building uptown.
In Figure 3, the first storm begins at noon (8/29/04) but intense rainfall does not begin until 7:50
PM. The peak stage from this rainfall event occurs at 8:15 PM, only 25 minutes after the peak
rainfall recording. This is a very short response time even for an urban watershed, but can
probably be attributed to the slow soaking rainfall (approximately 0.5 inches over 8 hours) before
the intense rainfall began at 7:50 PM.
The second storm which began at 8:50 PM on 8/30/04 has less total rainfall but is more intense
than the first storm. The peak rainfall occurs at 10:45 PM, while the peak stream response occurs
at 12:15 PM, approximately 1.5 hours after the peak rainfall. Little Sugar Creek experienced a
higher stage with the second storm by approximately 1.1 feet although it had less rainfall by 0.22
inches. This response shows the sensitivity of urban watersheds such as Little Sugar Creek to
short-duration, high-intensity storms.
Existing Stream Condition
Much of Little Sugar Creek has been altered to accommodate development. The creek has
historically been dredged and maintained as a flood control channel. Most of the banks have
been armored to prevent erosion from high flow velocities. The creek has been capped to
accommodate commercial use: the Midtown Square parking cap extends for 170 LF just
upstream of Morehead Street. The former McDonald's cap extends for 685 LF through the middle
of the project reach. The former Bank of America parking cap extends for 210 LF near the
upstream portion of the project.
The project reach of Little Sugar Creek has been listed on the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality's (NCDWQ) 303(d) list since 2000. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires
states to develop a list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired
uses. The NCDWQ 303(d) list includes violations of impaired biological integrity and high fecal
coliform concentrations for the creek.
Bankfull Verification
The bankfull stage along the Little Sugar Creek Kings Drive Reach was identified in the field; the
indicators were a break in slope on a flat depositional feature and a high scour line. Vegetation
trends were used as additional validation for this stage selection. These indicators are consistent
with other North Carolina urban Piedmont streams. Bankfull data for the project reach is
compared with the North Carolina Piedmont regional curve in Figure 4. The project's riffle cross-
sectional areas consistently plot close to the urban regional curve data, indicating that bankfull
stage was adequately selected within acceptable limits.
In order to identify bankfull discharge along the Kings Drive Reach, the current Mecklenburg
County HEC-RAS model was used. A range of discharges was run through the model to identify
a range which correlated with the field-identified bankfull stage. The bankfull discharge ranged
from 900 to 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs) according to the model. These values are
Buck Engineering Page 2
LSC Kings Drive Summary July 24, 2006

consistent with other North Carolina Piedmont urban streams, as seen in Figure 5. The bankfull
discharge was further verified by astage-discharge rating curve developed at a USGS gage
(02146409) near Medical Center Drive approximately 1,000 LF downstream from Morehead
Street on Little Sugar Creek. The observed bankfull depth (bankfull height -water surface
elevation) in the Kings Drive Reach was approximately 5.8 to 6.3 feet. This stage on the rating
curare shows a discharge of 950 to 1,150 cfs. This identified discharge is near to the previously
identified range and therefore within the acceptable limits.
Two other reaches of Little Sugar Creek have had stream enhancement work performed. The Liz
Hair Reach (Morehead Street to East Boulevard) and Westfield Road Reach (Princeton Street to
Brandywine Road) are both located downstream of the Kings Drive Reach. A geomorphic survey
has been conducted on both of these reaches, and the bankfull cross section areas for existing
and design conditions at Westfield are plotted on the regional curve in Figure 4. The Liz Hair
Reach was a Rosgen Priority 4 enhancement project which did not change channel geometry.
The Westfield Reach bankfull area plots near to the North Carolina Piedmont urban curve. The
Kings Drive Reach data are consistent with the other Little Sugar Creek reaches, thus further
verifying that the bankfull stage was selected within acceptable limits.
Reference Reach and Design Parameter Selection
Two reference reaches were identified off the project site and are located in the Piedmont of North
Carolina. These same reaches were used for the Westfield Road Reach natural channel design.
Campbell Creek is located in Charlotte, NC, and has asemi-urban drainage area of 6.1 square
miles. Silas Creek is located in Winston-Salem, NC, and has a watershed that is suburban with a
high percentage of forest. The Silas Creek reach drains 3.3 square miles. Bankfull cross
sectional areas from these reaches are plotted on the North Carolina Piedmont regional curve in
Figure 4. Both of these sites plot close to the rural regression curve, thus indicating the Piedmont
regional curve is applicable to these streams which are being used as reference reaches. The
fact that these streams' bankfull characteristics plot near to the rural curve rather than the urban
curare may indicate that urbanization has not had much of an effect on the geomorphic functions of
these streams.
Campbell Creek classifies as a Rosgen E4 type stream, while Silas Creek classifies as a Rosgen
B4c type. Silas Creek is more entrenched with an entrenchment ratio (ER) of 1.3 than Campbell
Creek's ER at 3.5. Silas Creek has a higher width to depth ratio at 15.1, while Campbell Creek is
approximately 9.7. The grain size distribution of the reference reaches is comparable to that of
Little Sugar Creek design reach. The design reach has a lower d~ grain size, which can be
attributed to a more urbanized watershed than the reference reaches. The average water surface
slope of the design reach is 0.3% and is also comparable with the reference reaches which are
between 0.7 - 0.8%. These parameters are summarized in Table 1.
The Little Sugar Creek Kings Drive Reach stream enhancement project will consist of Rosgen
Priority 2 and 3 enhancement. Stream alignment (pattern) adjustments will be made in areas not
restricted by property boundaries or utilities. This reach currently classifies between a Rosgen B4
and G4. An absolute Rosgen stream classification of urban streams such as Little Sugar Creek is
difficult due to historical channel modification and the limited ability of the channel to freely adjust
to its channel-forming agents because of utility and infrastructure constraints. The final design will
incorporate Rosgen B parameters. The width to depth ratio for the riffle design cross section is
close to 12 at 11.4, while the entrenchment ratio (ER) will range from 1.7-2.2. The bankfull cross
sectional area will be designed to be approximately 187 square feet. This cross section area plots
between the urban and rural curves (Figure 4). A bankfull bench approximately 10' to 20' wide will
be excavated on the left bank. A storm water wetland BMP will be installed on the bench to treat
Buck Engineering Page 3
LSC Kings Drive Summary July 24, 2006

the first flush of runoff before the bench in inundated by storm flows. Stream alignment
adjustments will be implemented according to site constraints, stable meander
wavelength/bankfull width ratios, and radius of curvature ratios. These parameters along with the
rest of the existing conditions and design parameters are summarized in Table 1.
Sediment Sampling
Buck Engineering collected sediment samples along the project reach using pavement-
subpavementand modified Wolman 100-count sampling techniques. Most riffles contain a large
percentage of embedded riprap sized particles that appear to have sloughed into the channel from
past bank stabilization efforts. The embedded nature and algal growth on these larger particles
indicate that they are not likely mobile during bankfull events. For our pavement-subpavement
sample, we selected a location that appeared to be most representative of the mobile portion of
the riffles. We conducted a wetted perimeter zigzag pebble count at a riffle to characterize the
pavement materials. Bed materials under the concrete caps were not included in the analysis,
due to confined space entry concerns.
Sediment Analysis
We checked sediment transport competency of the existing channel reaches using the
methodology developed by Rosgen and Jessup (Jessup, personal communication, 2002). This
methodology is based on dimensionless critical shear stress that is determined from ratios of
pavement to subpavement particle sizes. From the dimensionless critical shear stress estimates,
critical depth and water surface slope can be estimated and used to check a design. We also
used a boundary shear stress calculation and a modified version of Shield's curve to estimate the
largest particle size that can be moved in the channel. Our stream enhancement work will not
change the slope of the reach, and will only slightly decrease the existing cross-section of the
creek. We investigated whether the stream can be expected to aggrade or degrade over time
given its existing slope and proposed cross-section geomorphic characteristics.
The attached spreadsheets summarize the sediment sample data and analysis results. Graphs
summarizing sieve analysis and pebble count data are included. Our calculations indicate that the
existing stream slope of 0.0028 feet per foot is near to the critical slope of 0.00285 feet per foot
needed to transport the median bed material. The proposed bankfull max depth of 5.5 feet is
more than the critical depth of 4.1 feet. This result indicates that degradation could be a risk along
the project reach. Proposed in-stream boulder structures will provide grade control as safety
measures against degradation. The shallow bedrock observed on site will also prevent
degradation.
Aggradation is not expected to be a problem because of these calculation results and because not
much coarse sediment is being supplied to the system. The supply of coarse sediment in the size
range greater than about 90 mm is very limited in a developed, urban watershed such as Little
Sugar Creek. Furthermore, the existing channel appears to be moving its sediment load
adequately as evidenced by the lack ofmid-channel bars, and the design section does not
represent an extensive variation from the existing condition.
Referring to the modified Shield's curve, the largest movable particle size for the channel is 100 to
200 millimeters (mm), which indicates that the 70 mm maximum-size particle collected during the
subpavement sampling will likely be mobile during bankfull events. This movement will prevent
aggradation.
Buck Engineering Page 4
LSC Kings Drive Summary July 24, 2006

~,,..
~,, ~ ,~L;
t
'w_t-~.:
r:
~~
'1
.!" ' ~. i ns
t`~~'i +ne
~ l ~.
~., ~.-3~;~ '`
'e
+~
,. ~
r ~,
~ $
t ' I
~~~ A.yl .~}~ I
~
~,~
III I
~a !l
'
~~` f
e
~~q 1
. „
.
~4.*
~
~
~
s ~S~aC .Y t . fi...

. ~~ ,
{
~ k~ .• r
R ~ A~ ,~, '~ A~
i
i
~
f ~c ~+
~ ~ ~ f'. i~ .t /I .. {Z.~1K
4
4 ~.
y
yip
'
t * +
4r. ~ Yly I
,Ky T {' 1.
1

~~ I _

+~
1 ~
' ~
~ z~T~r
n
4 ri r~..
., ., ~ v _'A~~
.x''"`'
Map Inset LEGEND
Project Limits Creeks
~,~ ~ -' Watershed Boundary ~
L.---~
~' ns azs n os i
~..aw. ~u•.r. •c Mdes

Figure 2: Soils Map
Little Sugar Creek -Kinks Drive Reach
Soils ~ ~ I ~(~°4° •., ,, i c ~ ~ ~~,~'~ , ~ -_~
DSL NAME, FULLNAME ° ~,~ _
~ ~ + +{`'~ I - ~ ~ H.~ x.e `~ ~ ?~~

-APB, Appling sandy loam
d ( g a S
tl ~ ex""~ ~'~ ~ .n.. t ~ Ir
m
~
Ce82, Cecil sandy clay loam , ~ _
90 / a
~ ~i ~ 2 ~y
~ ~ •v
^ ~ ,, ~
to J o' YI
r
rI I
~p~

CeD2, Cecil sandy clay loam
h!
ON3 I y
I
o ~Y,a ~fa
dbs,
~ A oe``%
~
® CuB, Cecil-Urban land complex "y,a I i B.i
_ °

- CuD, Cecil-Urban land complex s 1
~ ~ 'f
- EnB, Enon sandy loam ~, f " ~ i
_ i \+,
~ oM+ ~'p~=~ii~~~~kk" ~
EnD, Enon sandy loam °' /
a
f _ ~~ ~~_ Cr i p ~ix \ p~~" ~1~
®HeB, Helena sandy loam ~
j/ ~~
~ y

- HuB, Helena-Urban land complex
~ -
~ 1h!
n
M
t _ ~ - J a = ~r~ /`/1
- MO, Monacan soils
MS
M
il
d A
t ~
1~l
~ r.~! \ x '
,
onacan so
s an
ren
s _
1 _
\\
•
- MkB, Mecklenburg-Urban land wmplex 1 a m~ l
, N
Qd ~~ -
•

- PaE, Pacolet sandy loam /
l
p 1
` t ' - J-'
M ~ ~~
5 - , ,g ~ f - a
•
nD a ~
1
~~

Ur, Urban land , ~
I
~ . J\ I1
`
l ~ ~~r
j

- VaB Vance sandy loam
r~ ~
S CM3 / < ~ .
~
~ ~+', ~ - _ y„
Wk6, Wilkes loam _ I~ Crz ~~~. - ~~~ i~ ~ ~->o
wi

WkE, Wilkes bam a
R r'd~> ~
/
'~

~
~ Eewv
~I Uoi ~ ~ l / ~ ~ -7~
~ N0~
~
WuD, Wilkes-Urban land complex *,
l
~~ x• s ~
tli '~~~ b ~kj ~'" ~_ ~~~ ~~J"-

- w. Water
,a% 1 _ s 1
1 ~~ s:~ s~_ ~ 1 s°°.P
MS
5

Map Inset LEGEND
Project limits -Creeks
`~ ~ -'' Watershed Boundary ~
U----'
` os azs o os t
.~mm.c,,,m>.c Miles

Figure 3
Little Sugar Creek Watershed Hydrology
14
12
~mvc: train wage uptown and GMG Stream Gage at Medical Center Drive
Total rain 0.38".
Rain begins Total rain 0.6". Rain begins at
at noon. 8:50 PM.
Heavy rain at
7:50 PM. ~ ~
10
r
= 8
m
ea
c~
c~a 6
L
4
2
CMC Stream Gage
~CMGC Rain Gage
Creek rises 4.3' from baseflow by
12:15 AM. Incremental rise of
3.9' since 10:45 PM.
0.05
H
•+
C
0.1 £
N `
m ~
s ~
~•
c _d
c ~
0.15 c •~
r
,`~.° ~n
a c
•U .~
~ ~
a L
0.2 ~
d
0.25
8/29/04 0:00 8/29/04 8:00 8/29/04 8/30/04 0:00 8/30/04 8:00 8/30/04 8/31 /04 0:00 8/31 /04 8:00 8/31 /04 9/1 /04 0:00
16:00 16:00 16:00
Date ~ Time
~ Heavy rain at
10:45 PM.
~ - Creek rises 3.2' from baseflow
by 8:15 PM. Incremental rise of
2.T since 7 PM.
i
Creek rises 9" by Creek rises 1.6'
5:15 PM. ~ ~ by 9:30 PM.
L:\Projects\0204C\Hydraulics\Storm\LSCgagegraphs.xls, graph zoom 7/24/2006 @ 4:29 PM

loon
w
L
Q 100
C~
C
O
U
U
10
w
C

Figure 4
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Area
- ---- - • _
- _.
- -~ •
-- -- ~
o ~' -
• ~- •
i • i
• -
- _ ~ ~ _ ._
• - - ~ - -- _
~ ~ __ - __
- --- - - Urban
_
_ - _ _ - RZ=0.97
- - ~ _ - - - ~ i ~ ~~ Rural
I 0.68
-- - II -- y = 21.43x
i r I
I
- '- ' - - _
- Rz - 0.95
•
1 ~
0.1
1 10 100
Drainage Area (mi Z )
1000
Urban Data • Rural Data ^ Campbell Creek RR O LSC Westfield exist
LSC Westfield design • Kings Drive design Campbell Creek RR2 O Kings Drive existing
Rural Regression -Urban Regression

loooo
1000

U
~..i
d~
L
A
100
10
Figure 5
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Discharge
--: L- -~ ~
-E - -
- -
,- -- - - i
• __
--
~ - -
- - __
- ^ - --- -
- - I -J -~ - - - ~-- - -
- -
•
• - _- __ ,,
-- -- - ~ --
• • i Urban
~ Rz=0.95
-: • -_:~
- - --
--
- _ _ _ .. Rural
_ -
~- _ _ ~ ~ i~-;_~ _ R~ 2 = 0.91
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (sq mi)
Urban Data • Rural Data ^ Kings Drive range maxi
Kings Drive range minimum -Power (Rural Data) -Power (Urban Data)

Table 1
Design Parameters
LSC Kings Drive Reach
Campbell Creek Silas Creek -Jessup Stable Design
Parameters ACOE Manual
NRCS ref c.1.
Parameter Units AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Stream T e Ros en E4 64G1
Drama a Area, DA SO MI 6.06 3.3
Bankfull Dischar e, Obkf CFS 199
Bankfull Riffle XS Area, Abkf SF 62.9 58.6 67.1 43.5 38.5 48.9
Bankfull Mean Velocit , Vbkf FPS 0.0 4.6
Bankfull Width FT 24.6 24.4 24.8 25.6 23.1 28.0
Bankfull Mean De th FT 2.6 2.4 2.8 1.7 1.5 1.9
Width to De th Ratio, W/D FT/FT 9.7 8.9 10.5 15.1 12.4 17.2 >10
Bankfull Max De th, Dmax 3.4 3.1 3.7 2.7 2.4 2.9
Max De th Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.7
Bank Hei ht Ratio, Dtob/Dmax FT/FT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Width of Flood rone Area, Wf a FT >85 33.7 33.0 35.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf FT/FT >3.5 1.3 1.2 1.4
Meander Wavelen th, Lm FT 168.3 130 245
Meander Wavelen th Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 6.6 5.1 9.6 7.0 ~,'L.e.
Meander Width, Wblt FT 43.7 40 51
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 1.7 1.6 2.0 3 5
Radius of Curvature, Rc FT 41.3 19.5 54.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 1.6 0.8 2.1 -
Valle Slo e, Sval FT/FT 0.0067 0.0088
Water Surface Slo e, Schan FT/FT 0.0059 0.0082
Sinuosi , K Sval/Schan 1.1 1.1 -
Riffle Slo e, Srif FT/FT 0.0164 0.0128 0.0187 0.02 0.058 7.05
Riffle Slo a Ratio, Srif/Schan 2.8 2.2 3.2 2.4 0.1 8.6 1.5 2.0
Pool Slo e, S ool FT/FT 0.00098 0.00022 0.00238 0.00004 ikii#tkt!# 0.00122
Pool Slo a Ratio, S ool/Schan 0.17 0.04 0.40 0.0 -0.2 0.1
Pool Max De th, Dmax ool FT 5.0 4.5 5.5 4.5 4.0 5.0
Pool Max De th Ratio, Dmax ool/Dbkf 2.0 1.7 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.9
Max Pool Location Za- 2a-i 0.28 0.44
Pool Width, W ool FT 37.5 30.1 44.8 26.0 22.6 28.0
Pool Width Ratio, W ool/VJbkf 1.5 1.2 1.8 1.0 0.9 1.1
Pool S acin , L s FT 104.6 88.9 120.2 62.4 27.2 126.0
Pool-Pool S acin Ratio, L s/Wbkf 4.3 3.6 4.9 2.4 1.1 4.9
d16 mm <0.062 0.283
d35 mm 0.2 0.83
d50 mm 45 19.1
d84 mm 495 157.5
d95 mm 256 300.2
Desi n Parameters
MIN MAX Rationale Design Reference
6 4c same as existing
1.99
1000 same as existin
187 b/t rural and urban curve
5.4
46.0
4.1
11.3 WH >70
5.5
1.4 RR
1.0 P2/3 enhancement
78.0 99.0 70' to 20' bench and 2:1 side slo es
1.7 2.2

0.0 028 exist conditions
0.0028 match ezis[ conditions
1.0 little space to address attern
0.0056 0.0084
2.0 3.0 Campbell
0.0000 0.0008
0.00 0.30 RR
8.1 11.4
2.0 2.8
0. 36 ACOE
46.0 50.6
1.0 1.1 RR
92.0 207.0
2.0 4.5 RR

L:\Prgecls\0204CWSSessment\Design\Design Parameters.xls, LSC Kings Dr 7/24/2006 @ 4:30 PM

Little Sugar Creek: Kings Drive Reach
Photo Log
Photo 1: Station 60+00. Looking downstream from Baxter Street bridge. April
2005.

Photo 2: Station 66+25. Looking upstream from former McDonald's culvert under
former Bank of America parking deck. April 2005.

Little Sugar Creek: Kings Drive Reach
Photo Log
Photo 5: Station 74+50. Looking downstream from former McDonald's cap. April
2005.
Photo 6: Station
cap. Apri12005.
king downstream toward Morehead Station parking

Little Sugar Creek: Kings Drive Reach
Photo Log
Photo 9: Station 70+00 to 82+00. Aerial view with Morehead Street bridge in the
upper right of photo. July 2003.

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Little Sugar Creek Greenway -Kings Drive
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish borough: Mecklenburg City: City
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.2113832° N, Long. 80.8366863° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Sugar Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TN W) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Little Sugar Creek flows to Sugar Creek
which flows to the Catawba River, a TNW
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
^ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
^ Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required)
^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
^ TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
^ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 22001inear feet: SOwidth (ft) and/or 2.5 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by O1HWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
^ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
a Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanoshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics check all that annlv):
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of nan/rilfle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
^ High Tide Line indicated by: ^ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects ^ survey to available datum;
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ^ physical markings;
^ physical markings/characteristics ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximitv (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ 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: 30 (or more)
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/Nl 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:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLl~:
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
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: Little Sugar Creek is identified by USGS as perennial stream.
^ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: 22001inear feet50width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
^ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
^ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 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.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters 9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
^ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
^ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
^ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
^ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
eSee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
to Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPL1~:
^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
^ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicanbconsultant:
^ 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:Charlotte East.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Mecklenburg County.
^ 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):
or ®Other (Name & Date):Photolog.
^ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
^ Applicable/supporting case law:
^ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
^ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: