20170750 Ver 1_404(b)(1) certification signed September 2008_20170731

Concord Streams Restoration, Concord, NC
Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Evaluation of Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230
This evaluation covers the placement of fill material into waters and wetlands of the United
States required for construction of the Concord Streams Restoration, Section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Project. Plans include instream restoration measures along 2,000 and
3,450 linear feet of Academy Center Branch and Stricker Branch, respectively, as well as the
construction of stormwater management facilities in each watershed.
Review of Compliance (230.10(a) -(d)) Preliminary11 Final 21
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose
(if no, see section 2 and NEPA document); YES ✓ NOD YES✓ NOD
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies); YES✓ NOD* YES✓ NOD
C. The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2); YES-,' NOD YES-/ NO❑
d Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5). YES-/ NOD- YES-/ NO[]
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 21 See page 6.

2.Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C -F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity impacts
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hyd roperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on otherwildlife (mammals
birds, reptiles, and amphibians).
c Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial fisheries impacts
(3) Effects on water -related recreation.
(4) Aesthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and historical monuments,
national seashores, wilderness areas, research
sites„ and similar preserves.
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3
"See page 6.
NIA Not Significant Significant
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
X
X
NA
X
NA
NA
NA
X
Pa
NA
NA
NA
NA
X

3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 31
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1)
Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(2)
Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(3)
Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..✓
(4)
Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..❑
(5)
Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA)
hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(6)
Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(7)
Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by
man -induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
List appropriate references.
Reference: Concord Streams Restoration, Concord, NC Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment, dated May 2008.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site." YES ✓ NO❑"
Proceed to Section 4
", 31, see page 6.
3

4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(D).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have
been considered in evaluating the
disposal
site.
(1)
Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ❑
(2)
Current velocity, direction, and
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ❑
(3)
Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ❑
(4)
Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ❑
(5)
Discharge vessel speed and direction . . . . . . . . .
. . ❑
(6)
Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ❑
(7)
Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ❑
(8)
Number of discharges per unit of
time..... .............................
❑
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify). No discharge or dredged or fill material is proposed in waters or wetlands
except for de minimus material that may fall from excavation equipment during stream restoration
actions. Rocks, root wads or similar material may be placed in the streams as a part of restoration
actions but this is not fill material.
List appropriate references.
Reference: Concord Streams Restoration Concord, NC, Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment, dated May 2008.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable. YES ✓ NO ❑*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken. YES ✓ NO ❑*
No discharge or dredged or fill material is proposed in waters or wetlands except for de minimus material
that may fall from excavation equipment during stream restoration actions. Rocks, root wads or similar
material may be placed in the streams as a part of restoration actions but this is not fill material.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, gage 3.
*See page 6.
4

6. Factual Determinations (230.11
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
. . . . . . . . V/
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
YES ✓ NO ❑'
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
YES ✓ NO ❑"
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
YES ✓ NO ❑"
d Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4).
YES ✓ NO ❑'
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5). YES ✓ NO ❑"
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5). YES ✓ NO ❑"
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES ✓ NO El -
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES ✓ NO ❑"
7. Findings.
a.The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . V/
b.The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .❑
c.The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1)There is a less damaging practicable alternative . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ❑
(2)The proposed discharge will result in significant
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .G
"See page 6

(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
i
412__
OF
4eprson M scavage
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Commander
Date: 1-1 300%_>19
"A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit application may not be in compliance with the
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage indicate that the proposed projects
may not be evaluated using this "short form procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the
technical information of items 2 a -d, before completing the final review of compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed project does not
comply with the guidelines. If the economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated
in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing, the "short -form" evaluation process is
inappropriate.