20180032 Ver 1_00_LowerLSC_PCN_USACE-JD_COMPLETE_20180111

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW-Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder Assign Action ID Number in ORM
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]:
2. Work Type:Private Institutional Government Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 – or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]:
7. Project Location – Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form B1b]:
8. Project Location – Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]:
9. Project Location – County [PCN Form A2b]:
10. Project Location – Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]:
11. Project Information – Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]:
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form B2c]:
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404 Section 10 and 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Pre-Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request No Permit Required
Revised 20150602
îðïé
Ô±©»® Ô·¬¬´» Í«¹¿® Ý®»»µ Ù®»»²©¿§ ¿²¼ ͬ®»¿³ λ¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² øº®±³ Íò б´µ ͬò ¬±Í¬¿¬»´·²»÷
ì
̸·­ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ·­ ¬± ®»¯«»­¬ ¿«¬¸±®·¦¿¬·±² ¬± ½±²¼«½¬ ­¬®»¿³ ¾¿²µ ­¬¿¾·´·¦¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ·²ó­¬®»¿³ »²¸¿²½»³»²¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ º±® ¬¸» °«®°±­»­
±º ·³°®±ª·²¹ ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ô ¾¿²µ ­¬¿¾·´·¦¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ¿¯«¿¬·½ ¸¿¾·¬¿¬ ¿²¼ ¬± ½±²­¬®«½¬ ¿ ïî󺱱¬ ³«´¬·ó«­» ¬®¿·´ ø·ò»ò ¹®»»²©¿§÷ò ̸·­
­«¾³·¬¬¿´ ·­ ¬± ®»¯«»­¬ ¿ ÐÖÜ ¿²¼ ­«¾³·¬ ÐÝÒ °«®­«¿²¬ ¬± ÒÉÐ ïíúîé º±® ¬¸» Ô±©»® Ô·¬¬´» Í«¹¿® Ý®»»µ Ù®»»²©¿§ ¿²¼ ͬ®»¿³
λ¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² °®±¶»½¬ò
ݸ¿®´±¬¬»óÓ»½µ´»²¾«®¹ ͬ±®³ É¿¬»® Í»®ª·½»­
Õ·³´»§óر®²å ÐÑÝ Ó®ò ݸ®·­ Ì·²µ´»²¾»®¹ô ÐÉÍ
Ô±½¿¬»¼ ¿´±²¹ Ô·¬¬´» Í«¹¿® Ý®»»µ º®±³ ¬¸» б´µ Ø·­¬±®·½ Í·¬» ¬± ¬¸» ÒÝñÍÝ ­¬¿¬» ´·²»ô ·² з²»ª·´´»ô Ò±®¬¸
Ý¿®±´·²¿
Ó«´¬·°´» ó Ô·²»¿® Ю±¶»½¬
Ó»½µ´»²¾«®¹
ݸ¿®´±¬¬»
Ô·¬¬´» Í«¹¿® Ý®»»µ
Ô±©»® Ý¿¬¿©¾¿ øØËÝ ðíðëðïðí÷
ì
ì
ì
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131
December 29, 2017
Mr. David Shaeffer
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Pre-Construction Notification (NWP #13 & #27) Application &
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation (from S. Polk St. to Stateline)
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of our client, Charlotte-Mecklenburg (County) Stormwater Services, Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. (KH) is submitting the enclosed joint Section 404/401 Pre-Construction Notification
for the above referenced project for your review pursuant to a Nationwide Permits #13 & #27 and
General 401 Water Quality Certification number 4087. This application is to request authorization to
conduct stream bank stabilization and in-stream enhancement activities for the purposes of improving
water quality, bank stabilization, and aquatic habitat and to construct a 12-foot multi-use trail (i.e.
greenway). The center of the project area is located at 35.072776°N, -80.893387°W. The following
information is included as part of this application submittal:
l Project Summary Sheet
l Agent Authorization Letter
l Pre-Construction Notification Form
l Permit Figures
n Figure 1 - Vicinity
n Figure 2 – USGS Topo (Fort Mill)
n Figure 3 – SSURGO Soils
n Figure 4 – Existing Conditions
n Figure 5 – Proposed Conditions
l Permit Drawings for Lower Little Sugar Creek Stream Restoration (From President James K.
Polk State Historic Site to the NC/SC Stateline)
l Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Request
l Field Data Forms
n NCDWR Stream Identification Forms
l Project Site Photographs
l Agency Correspondence
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Mecklenburg County proposes the construction of an approximately 2.47 miles of 12’-wide multi-use
path and an additional 0.57 miles of 10’ and 12’-wide connections to adjacent points of interest along
the corridor. The multi-use path will provide connectivity from to the proposed Little Sugar Creek
Greenway (currently under design) just west of South Polk Street all the way to the North
Carolina/South Carolina state line. This multi-use path will also provide access to the President
James K. Polk State Historic Site, the Belle Johnson Park, Pineville Community Park and multiple
residential developments along the corridor. A trailhead with parking and restroom facilities is also
proposed off of Lake Dr. The project will support pedestrian and bicycle travel between residential,
commercial, and recreational facilities by providing an alternative transportation option. In addition to
the multi-use path, the County also proposes to stabilize segments of Little Sugar Creek along the
project corridor. The bank stabilization and stream enhancements are included to reduce bank
erosion, improve channel dimension, and stabilize bank areas in close proximity to the proposed
multi-use path. Stabilization includes bank grading to a stable slope, rock toe protection, and buffer
revegetation. The project corridor begins adjacent to Little Sugar Creek, 552 linear feet west of South
Polk Street. The path follows the north side of Little Sugar Creek for 6,350 linear feet where it crosses
the creek and continues south of the Creek for another 6,725 linear feet ending at the state line.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project corridor is located in the piedmont region of North Carolina. Topography is moderate
within the study corridor and roughly ranges from 520 to 620 feet in elevation (Figure 2; National
Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929).
The project is located in the Catawba River Basin. A field review by Kimley-Horn environmental
scientists was conducted on July 2, 2014, August 16, 2015 and May 15, 2017. Little Sugar Creek, a
potential non-wetland water of the US (WoUS) as well as seven (7) additional unnamed tributaries
(potential non-wetland WoUS) are located within the project study corridor (Figures 4a & 4b). Little
Sugar Creek discharges into Sugar Creek approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the project study
corridor, which subsequently discharges into the Catawba River an additional (25.7 stream miles) 8.5
miles to the south.
Little Sugar Creek is rated by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Division of Water Resources (DWR) as Class C with the following DWR Stream Index #
11-137-8. Class C waters are protected for primary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption,
aquatic habitat and agricultural uses. Currently, Little Sugar Creek is classified as 303d listed (i.e.
“impaired”) and is not meeting its water quality functions. Primary pollutants are heavy metals,
sediment, and bacteria. The project study corridor does not lie within a Water Supply Watershed and
there are no Outstanding Resource Waters or High Quality Waters within the study corridor.
Field investigations by Kimley-Horn environmental scientists also determined that there were no
potential wetland WoUS in the project corridor. One potential wetland WoUS is located upslope of
Stream 7 (S7), just outside of the project corridor (Figure 4b).
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131
STREAM REHABILITATION APPROACH
Goals and Objectives:
The goal of the stream and buffer rehabilitation is to improve the hydraulic and geomorphic function of
LSC to create a foundation for potential improvements of water quality and aquatic/terrestrial habitat
of the site’s streams and floodplain through the following objectives:
l Improve the hydraulic geometry to have a low-flow channel, inner berm, and bankfull channel
more representative of reference conditions with less active bank erosion.
l Create bank angles and hydraulic geometry that allow vegetation and root mass to extend
from the water’s edge up to the top of the channel banks.
l Improve the stem and root density and species diversity of the riparian buffer immediately
adjacent to LSC.
l Reduce the BEHI scores along the reach from high, very high, or extreme to low.
l Reduce incision, erosive velocities, and high-shear stress by adding a floodplain bench
(where constraints allow).
l Create local slope and bed-depth variability (i.e. habitat transitions) by adding instream
structures like rock and log vanes, J-hook vanes, boulder and log riffles, and toe wood.
l Increase dissolved oxygen concentrations through in-stream structures and the turbulence
they produce in pools.
l Stabilize stream banks using bioengineering and/or specific natural channel design
techniques for each reach based on constraints and opportunities.
l Reduce bank source sediment by implementing bank stabilization and natural channel design
techniques. We will retrofit some off-site sediment sources, such as point source outlets and
ditches, with pocket wetlands, level spreaders, or RSCs.
l Introduce woody structures such as log vanes, log sills, and toe wood by adding wood and
detritus into the system.
l Control the invasive exotics by pretreatment, removal during construction, and implementing
an invasive species control plan.
l Protect infrastructure
l Implement best management practice (BMP)/stormwater control measures (SCM)
opportunities to stabilize stormwater outfalls.
Improvements in the higher functions of water quality and biology may not be fully achievable given
the urban land use and point and non-point discharges that outfall into LSC. However, improving the
underlying stream hydraulic and geomorphic functions of the channel would better support these
improvements in higher functions if watershed conditions allow.
Based the objectives above, a specific detailed stream rehabilitation plan was completed. Each reach
has a tailored approach/plan that takes advantage of the opportunities to improve geomorphic and
hydraulic functions given the constraints.
The project will result in 7,500 linear feet of permanent, no-net loss of potential non-wetland WoUS
from bank stabilization activities and 550 linear feet of permanent, no-net loss of potential non-
wetland WoUS from in-stream enhancements necessary to meet me the goals and objectives
described above.
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Construction of the stream side retaining walls, boulder toe protection, rock toe protection, stream
bank grading, constructed riffle installation, boardwalk installation, or pedestrian bridge installation
may require the contractor to temporarily work in the wet. Temporary low water ford crossings may be
implemented as well.
Timber mat temporary stream crossings will be utilized as needed for construction equipment at some
locations where the greenway crosses existing tributaries to minimize impacts to the streams.
Special stilling basins and gravel construction pads will also be used during the bridge and boardwalk
construction for erosion control.
Because the project proposes to traverse through the Little Sugar Creek floodplain and cross Little
Sugar Creek and several tributaries to Little Sugar Creek, bridge and boardwalk options will be used
at these locations to avoid impacts to potentially jurisdictional non-wetland waters, therefore, no
compensatory mitigation is proposed as part of this project.
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions, or if additional
information is necessary.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Attachments
Cc: Bert Lynn
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
3205 Freedom Drive, Suite 101
Charlotte, NC 28202
Byron Hampstead
USFWS Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Project Summary Sheet
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131
Project Name: Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation (from S. Polk St. to Stateline)
Applicant Name and Address: Mr. Bert Lynn
Charlotte-Mecklenburg (County) Storm Water Services
3205 Freedom Drive, Suite 101
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number: [phone]
Type of Request: Nationwide PCN (NWP # 13&27) Individual Permit Application
Jurisdictional Determination Other:
Included Attachments: Project Plans USGS Map NRCS Soil Survey
Agent Authorization Delineation Sketch Delineation Survey
Data Forms (Up & Wet) NCDWR Stream Forms USACE Stream Forms
NCEEP Confirmation Aerial Photo Site Photos
Agency Correspondence Other: Other:
Check if applicable:CAMA County Trout County Isolated Waters
Section 7, ESA Section 106, NHPA EFH
Mitigation Proposed (NC EEP On-Site Off-Site Other)
County:Mecklenburg Nearest City/Town: Pineville
Waterway: Little Sugar Creek River Basin:Catawba; NCDWR 03-08-34
H.U.C.: 03050103 USGS Quad Name: Fort Mill
Property Size (acres): 102 acres Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 8.5
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.072776 °N -80.893387 °W
Project Location: The proposed stream restoration and greenway project area is defined as Lower Little Sugar Creek
(LSC) from James K. Polk State Historic Site to the Stateline (NC/SC) located in the City of Pineville, North Carolina.
Site Description: The project boundary generally runs parallel with LSC consisting mostly of maintained utility
easements and maintained lawns. The watershed at the downstream end of the project area is approximately 48.40 square
miles. It is located in a developing watershed and partially drains parts of urban and sub-urban Charlotte, NC.
Impact Summary (if applicable): The proposed project will result in 7,500 linear feet of permanent, no-net loss of potential
non-wetland WoUS from bank stabilization activities and 550 linear feet of permanent, no-net loss of potential non-wetland
WoUS from in-stream enhancements necessary to meet me the goals and objectives described above.
NWP
#
Open Water
(acres)
Wetland
(acres)
Stream Channel
Intermittent and/or Unimportant
Aquatic Function
Perennial and/or Important
Aquatic Function
Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm.Temp.Perm.Temp.Perm.
lf ac lf ac lf ac lf Ac
13 7,500 1.72
27 550 0.63
Total
Total Permanent (No Net Loss) Impact to Waters of the U.S. 8,050 (2.35 ac)
Kimley-Horn Contact: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Direct Number: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. _____________
DWQ project no. _______________
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 13&27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?Yes No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
401 Water Quality Certification – Regular Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
401 Water Quality Certification – Express Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
Yes No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
Yes No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
Yes No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC’s twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
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:Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation (from S. Polk St. to
Stateline)
2b. County:Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town:Pineville
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:Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services and Right of Entry Agreements
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 2 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: Agent Other, specify: Public Agency
4b. Name:Bert Lynn
4c. Business name
(if applicable):Mecklenburg County Government
4d. Street address:3205 Freedom Drive, Suite 101
4e. City, state, zip:28208
4f. Telephone no.:[phone]
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable):Kimley-Horn and Associates
5c. Street address:200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
5d. City, state, zip:Charlotte, NC 28202
5e. Telephone no.:704-409-1802
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:[e-mail]
Page 3 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services and Right
of Entry Agreements
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):Latitude: 35.072776 Longitude: -80.893387
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:102 acres (Project Boundary)
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:Little Sugar Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:Little Sugar Creek - Class "C"
2c. River basin:Catawba; NCDWR Subbasin 03-08-34; HUC 03050103
Page 4 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Mecklenburg County proposes the construction of an approximately 2.47 miles of 12’-wide multi-use path and an
additional 0.57 miles of 10’ and 12’-wide connections to adjacent points of interest along the corridor. The multi-use
path will provide connectivity from to the proposed Little Sugar Creek Greenway (currently under design) just west of
South Polk Street all the way to the North Carolina/South Carolina state line. This multi-use path will also provide
access to the President James K. Polk State Historic Site, the Belle Johnson Park, Pineville Community Park and
multiple residential developments along the corridor. A trailhead with parking and restroom facilities is also proposed off
of Lake Dr. The project will support pedestrian and bicycle travel between residential, commercial, and recreational
facilities by providing an alternative transportation option. In addition to the multi-use path, the County also proposes to
stabilize segments of Little Sugar Creek along the project corridor. The bank stabilization and stream enhancements
are included to reduce bank erosion, improve channel dimension, and stabilize bank areas in close proximity to the
proposed multi-use path. Stabilization includes bank grading to a stable slope, rock toe protection, and buffer
revegetation. The project corridor begins adjacent to Little Sugar Creek, 552 linear feet west of South Polk Street. The
path follows the north side of Little Sugar Creek for 6,350 linear feet where it crosses the creek and continues south of
the Creek for another 6,725 linear feet ending at the state line.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project corridor is located in the piedmont region of North Carolina. Topography is moderate within the study
corridor and roughly ranges from 520 to 620 feet in elevation (Figure 2; National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929).
The project is located in the Catawba River Basin. A field review by Kimley-Horn environmental scientists was
conducted on July 2, 2014, August 16, 2015 and May 15, 2017. Little Sugar Creek, a potential non-wetland water of the
US (WoUS) as well as seven (7) additional unnamed tributaries (potential non-wetland WoUS) are located within the
project study corridor (Figures 4a & 4b). Little Sugar Creek discharges into Sugar Creek approximately 0.6 miles
southwest of the project study corridor, which subsequently discharges into the Catawba River an additional (25.7
stream miles) 8.5 miles to the south.
Little Sugar Creek is rated by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Resources (DWR) as Class C with the following DWR Stream Index # 11-137-8. Class C waters are
protected for primary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic habitat and agricultural uses. Currently, Little
Sugar Creek is classified as 303d listed (i.e. “impaired”) and is not meeting its water quality functions. Primary
pollutants are heavy metals, sediment, and bacteria. The project study corridor does not lie within a Water Supply
Watershed and there are no Outstanding Resource Waters or High Quality Waters within the study corridor.
Field investigations by Kimley-Horn environmental scientists also determined that there were no potential wetland
WoUS in the project corridor. One potential wetland WoUS is located upslope of Stream 7 (S7), just outside of the
project corridor (Figure 4b).
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0 Acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
The total length of all on-site streams is approximately 19,000 linear feet.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project to conduct bank stabilization and in-stream enhancement activities on LSC in order to improve
water quality, aquatic habitat and bank stabilization and to construct approximately 3.0 miles of greenway and greenway
connectors to enhance connectivity for bordering neighborhoods.
Page 5 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
STREAM REHABILITATION APPROACH
Goals and Objectives:
The goal of the stream and buffer rehabilitation is to improve the hydraulic and geomorphic function of LSC to create a
foundation for potential improvements of water quality and aquatic/terrestrial habitat of the site’s streams and floodplain
through the following objectives:
· Improve the hydraulic geometry to have a low-flow channel, inner berm, and bankfull channel more representative of
reference conditions with less active bank erosion.
· Create bank angles and hydraulic geometry that allow vegetation and root mass to extend from the water’s edge up
to the top of the channel banks.
· Improve the stem and root density and species diversity of the riparian buffer immediately adjacent to LSC.
· Reduce the BEHI scores along the reach from high, very high, or extreme to low.
· Reduce incision, erosive velocities, and high-shear stress by adding a floodplain bench (where constraints allow).
· Create local slope and bed-depth variability (i.e. habitat transitions) by adding instream structures like rock and log
vanes, J-hook vanes, boulder and log riffles, and toe wood.
· Increase dissolved oxygen concentrations through in-stream structures and the turbulence they produce in pools.
· Stabilize stream banks using bioengineering and/or specific natural channel design techniques for each reach based
on constraints and opportunities.
· Reduce bank source sediment by implementing bank stabilization and natural channel design techniques. We will
retrofit some off-site sediment sources, such as point source outlets and ditches, with pocket wetlands, level
spreaders, or RSCs.
· Introduce woody structures such as log vanes, log sills, and toe wood by adding wood and detritus into the system.
· Control the invasive exotics by pretreatment, removal during construction, and implementing an invasive species
control plan.
· Protect infrastructure
· Implement best management practice (BMP)/stormwater control measures (SCM) opportunities to stabilize
stormwater outfalls.
Improvements in the higher functions of water quality and biology may not be fully achievable given the urban land use
and point and non-point discharges that outfall into LSC. However, improving the underlying stream hydraulic and
geomorphic functions of the channel would better support these improvements in higher functions if watershed conditions
allow.
Based the objectives above, a specific detailed stream rehabilitation plan was completed. Each reach has a tailored
approach/plan that takes advantage of the opportunities to improve geomorphic and hydraulic functions given the
constraints.
The project will result in 7,500 linear feet of permanent, no-net loss of potential non-wetland WoUS from bank
stabilization activities and 550 linear feet of permanent, no-net loss of potential non-wetland WoUS from in-stream
enhancements necessary to meet me the goals and objectives described above.
It is anticipated that a back-hoe and/or mini excavator will be used to shape the channels and construct the in-stream
structures.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
Yes No Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? Preliminary Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Page 6 of 14
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.
When complete, the Cross-Charlotte Trail will include 26 miles of trail and connectors. Currently, half of the overall trail is in
design or under construction. Per coordination with USACE and NCDWR, any impacts associated with future phases of
the project require compensatory mitigation. The greenway trail design associated with this phase of the project has
avoided impacts to waters of the US by altering the trail alignment as well as proposing bridges over all stream crossings.
Mecklenburg County will continue to address future phases of the project and mitigation requirements associated with
those phases with USACE and NCDWR when necessary.
C.Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams - tributaries Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction
Page 7 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number –
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
(if known)
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
(Corps - 404, 10
DWQ – non-404, other)
2f.
Area of impact
(acres)
W P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
W P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
W P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
W P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
W P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
W P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
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.
Stream impact
number -
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial
(PER) or
intermittent
(INT)?
3e.
Type of jurisdiction
(Corps - 404, 10
DWQ – non-404,
other)
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
LSC – Impact 1
P T Bank stabilization LSC PER
INT
Corps
DWQ 40 7,500
LSC – Impact 2
P T
In-Stream
Enhancements LSC PER
INT
Corps
DWQ 40 550
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 8,050
3i. Comments: The project will result in 7,500 linear feet of permanent, no-net loss of potential non-wetland WoUS from
bank stabilization activities and 550 linear feet of permanent, no-net loss of potential non-wetland WoUS from in-stream
enhancements necessary to meet me the goals and objectives described above.
Page 8 of 14
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.
Open water
impact number
– Permanent
(P) or
Temporary (T)
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
O1 P T
O2 P T
O3 P T
O4 P T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose of
pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. 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 9 of 14
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.
Project is in which protected basin?
Neuse Tar-Pamlico Other:
Catawba Randleman
6b.
Buffer impact
number –
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
6c.
Reason
for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1 impact
(square feet)
6g.
Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
B1 P T 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
1a.Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Because the project proposes to traverse through the Little Sugar Creek floodplain and cross Little Sugar Creek and several
tributaries to Little Sugar Creek, bridge and boardwalk options will be used at these locations to avoid impacts to potentially
jurisdictional non-wetland waters.
1b.Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction of the stream side retaining walls, boulder toe protection, rock toe protection, stream bank grading, constructed
riffle installation, boardwalk installation, or pedestrian bridge installation may require the contractor to temporarily work in the
wet. Temporary low water ford crossings may be implemented as well.
Timber mat temporary stream crossings will be utilized as needed for construction equipment at some locations where the
greenway crosses existing tributaries to minimize impacts to the streams. Special stilling basins and gravel construction pads
will also be used during the bridge and boardwalk construction for erosion control.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): DWQ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project?
Mitigation bank
Payment to in-lieu fee program
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 10 of 14
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:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? Yes No
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: Yes No
Page 11 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?<5%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? Yes No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Certified Local Government
DWQ Stormwater Program
DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government’s jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
Phase II
NSW
USMP
Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
Yes No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
Coastal counties
HQW
ORW
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 12 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? Yes No
1b. 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
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Yes No
1c. If you answered “yes” to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments:
Yes No
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,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
Yes No
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
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes No
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.
Page 13 of 14
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
habitat? Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. Raleigh
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Per the report, a historic element occurrence for Carolina heelsplitter is present within Little Sugar Creek. No potentially
suitable habitat for Carolina heelsplitter was observed during field reviews. An agency correspondence letter has been
submitted to the USFWS requesting their review and comment however, no response has been received as of the date of
this PCN. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on April 13, 2017 did not indicate
known occurrences of threatened or endangered species within the project boundary.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NCNHP element occurrence database did not indicate the presence of EFH within the project boundary.
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
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database on June 6,
2017 did not indicate any cultural or historic resources within the project boundary.Additionally, an agency
correspondence letter from NC SHPO was received on June 6, 2017 confirming that no known cultural or historic
resources are present within the project boundary.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: A flood impact analysis report, no-impact certification, and
individual floodplain development permit will be submitted to Mecklenburg County for review and approval prior to
construction/restoration activities. The results of the flood impact anaylsis show that there is no net increase in base flood
elevations.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panels 4439 and 4438
Page 14 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
_______________________________
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
12/29/2017
Date
±
0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure 1: Vicinity
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to Stateline
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
December 2017
Figure 1
0 5 10
Miles
Legend
Project Boundary
±
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Figure 2: USGS Topo (Fort Mill)
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to Stateline
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
December 2017
Legend
Project Boundary
LittleSugarCreekMO
MO
PaE
WkE
CeB2
PaE
PaE
PaE
WkE
PaF
PaE
MeB
CeD2
WkE
PaE
PaE
CeB2
WkE
WkF
MO
MeB
WkD
DaE
MeB
CeD2
CeB2
PaE
CeB2
WkE
MO
WkD
MeD
PaEPaE
CeB2
CeB2
MeB
CeB2
CeB2
WkF
CeB2
IrB
WkF
CeE3
CeD2
PaE
We
MeB
WkE
DormanRdLakeview D rL
a
k
e
Dr
Ly
nnwoodLnMall
a
r
d
Dr Sa
b
al
P
ark
Dr
L
a
n
c
a
s
t
e
r
H
WY
Eden
Crk
S a m M e e ks Rd
Co n e A veOlive
St
MarineDrBishopsGate B lv dStoneacreCt
BoatrightRd
Parkla k e D rPelican B
a
y
Dr
Sto
k
e
s
h
ill
Ct
S tratfield
Pla
c
e
C
r
k
Old
Compton Ct
SabalPointDr
Figure 3: SSURGO Soils and NWI
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to Stateline
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, NC
December 2017
±
0 350 700
Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
NWI
SSURGO Soils
Hydric Rating
Not Hydric (0%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Hydric (33-65%)
Hydric (66-99%)
!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_S3
S4
S2
S5
S1 - Little Sugar Creek
15
16
17
18
19
1
3
5
2
4
6
78
M
arine
D
r
JohnstonDrS
abal
Park D r
SabalPark
DrSt
r
atfield Place CrkKenmoreDrLakeviewDr SPol
kStSabal
Poin t D rHall Ln
Ja
m
esSt
S a b a l
P a rk Dr
ParkAve
LakeDr
Sam Meeks Rd
PinevilleForest
D
r
Sparro w s
Nest L n
S
tin
e
w
a
y
C
tMe
a
dowCr
e
e
kLn
Standen
Place
Ct
Pe lic a n
B a y D r Me a d o w C re e k L n
RobinReedCtMeadow
C
reekLn
S
tr
a
tfie
ld
P
l
a
c
e
C
r
k
M
e
adow
C
re
ekLn
S a b a lP arkDrStok
e
s
hill
C
t
Meadow Cre
ekLnOliveSt
Lowr y S t
L
a
n
c
a
st
e
r
H
WY
T o w n e Centre B lv d
Sab
al
P
a
rk
D
rStoneacreCt
0 225 450
Feet
Figure 4a: Preliminary JD Field Sketch
Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, NC
December 2017
Legend
Project Boundary
Streams (Potential Non-Wetland WoUS)
!_Photo Locations
±
Matchline
!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_MatchlineS8
S7
S5
S6
S1 - Little Sugar Creek
5
11
13
6
7
8 9
10
12
14
17
18
19
20 BishopsGateBl
vdOl
dComptonCtS
t
o
n
e
a
cr
e
C
t
ParkCre scent Crk
0 225 450
Feet
Figure 4b: Preliminary JD Field Sketch
Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, NC
December 2017
Legend
Project Boundary
Streams (Potential Non-Wetland WoUS)
Offsite Approximate Wetlands (Potential Wetland WoUS)±
,,
,,
,,
,,
,
,,
,,
,,
,,
M
arin
e
D
r
JohnstonDrS
abal
Park D r
SabalPark
DrSt
ratfield Place CrkKenmoreDrLakeviewDr SPolkStSabalPoint
Dr
Hall Ln
Ja
m
esSt
S a b a l
P a rk Dr
ParkAve
LakeDr
Sam Meeks Rd
PinevilleForest
D
r
Sparro w s
Nest L n
S
tin
e
w
a
y
C
tMe
a
dowCr
e
e
kLn
Standen
Place
Ct
Pe lican
Ba y D r
M e a d o w C re e k L n
RobinReedCtMeadow
C
reekLn
S
tr
a
tfi
e
ld
P
l
a
c
e
C
r
k
MeadowCreekLn
S a b a lP arkDrSto
k
e
s
hill
C
t
Meadow Cre
ekLnOliveSt
Lowr y S t
L
a
n
c
a
st
e
r
H
WY
T o w n e Centre B lv d
Sab
al
P
a
r
k
D
rStoneacreCt
0 225 450
Feet
Figure 5a: Proposed Conditions
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
December 2017
Legend
Project Area
Streams (Potential Non-Wetland WoUS)
Stream Rehabilitation Elements
Bank Stabilization
Boulder/Structure
Channel Work
,,,
,,,Constructed Riffle
Stream Relocation
Greenway Elements
Bridge/Boardwalk
Greenway Edge of Pavement
Trailhead
Retaining Walls
±
Matchline
Little Sugar Creek - Impact 1
Bank Stabilization Activites (NWP13)
Permanent No-Net Loss - 7,500 lf
Little Sugar Creek - Impact 2
In-Stream Rehabilitation Activites (NWP27)
Permanent No-Net Loss - 550 lf
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,BishopsGateBl
vdOldComptonCtParkCresc e n t Crk
0 225 450
Feet
Figure 5b: Proposed Conditions
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
December 2017
Legend
Project Area
Streams (Potential Non-Wetland WoUS)
Stream Rehabilitation Elements
Bank Stabilization
Boulder/Structure
Channel Work
,,,
,,,Constructed Riffle
Stream Relocation
Greenway Elements
Bridge/Boardwalk
Greenway Edge of Pavement
Trailhead
Retaining Walls ±MatchlineLittle Sugar Creek - Impact 1
Bank Stabilization Activites (NWP13)
Permanent No-Net Loss - 7,500 lf
Little Sugar Creek - Impact 2
In-Stream Rehabilitation Activites (NWP27)
Permanent No-Net Loss - 550 lf
Lakev ie w D rContinuetoTrailhead
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version:May 2017 Page 1
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELDOFFICES
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue,Room 208
Asheville,North Carolina28801-5006
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGHREGULATORY FIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest,NorthCarolina27587
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington,NorthCarolina27889
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
69Darlington Avenue
Wilmington,NorthCarolina 28403
GeneralNumber:910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which mayinclude inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version:May 2017 Page 2
A.PARCELINFORMATION
Street Address: _______________________________________________
City, State: _______________________________________________
County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B.REQUESTORINFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
_________________________________________
Telephone Number: _________________________________________
Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C.PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Mustprovidecompleted Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
б´µØ·­¬±®·½Í·¬»¬±ÒÝñÍÝ Í¬¿¬»´·²»
з²»ª·´´»ô ÒÝ
Ó»½µ´»²¾«®¹
Òñß
ݸ®·­Ì·²µ´»²¾»®¹ô ÐÉÍ
îðð ͱ«¬¸ Ì®§±² ͬ®»»¬ô Í«·¬» îðð
ݸ¿®´±¬¬»ô ÒÝ îèîðî
éðìóìðçóïèðî
½¸®·­ò¬·²µ´»²¾»®¹àµ·³´»§ó¸±®²ò½±³
Ó»½µ´»²¾«®¹Ý±«²¬§øÐÑÝæÞ»®¬Ô§²²÷
íîðë Ú®»»¼±³ Ü®·ª»ô Í«·¬» ïðï
ݸ¿®´±¬¬»ô ÒÝ îèîðî
øçèð÷ íïìóîëðí
Þ»®¬òÔ§²²à³»½µ´»²¾«®¹½±«²¬§²½ò¹±ª
ì
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version:May 2017 Page 3
D.PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION3,4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Print Name
Capacity: Owner Authorized Agent5
Date
Signature
E.REASON FOR JD REQUEST:(Check as many as applicable)
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources underCorps authority.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcelwhich may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JDwould be used to avoid and minimize
impacts tojurisdictional aquatic resources and asaninitial step in a future permitting
process.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcelwhich may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
Other:___________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
4 If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
5 Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
ݸ®·­Ì·²µ´»²¾»®¹
ì
ì
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version:May 2017 Page 4
F.JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States”on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional “waters of
the United States”. PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
“preliminary” in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
I am requesting that the Corps provide an approvedJD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United
States” are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other “affected
party” (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G.ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearlydepict the boundaries of the
review area.
Size of Property or Review Area acres.
The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
ïðî
ì
ì
ì
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version:May 2017 Page 5
H.REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: ______________________
Longitude: ______________________
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
North Arrow
Graphical Scale
Boundary of Review Area
Date
Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
Jurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non-jurisdictional (i.e.
“Isolated”, “No Significant Nexus”, or “Upland Feature”). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
____________________________________________________________________________
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled “Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations” to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards.http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
íëòðéîééê
óèðòèçííèé
ì
ì
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version:May 2017 Page 6
Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
PJDs,please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form7 and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form8
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
_____________________________________________________________________________
7 www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App_A_Prelim_JD_Form_fillable.pdf
8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
PrincipalPurpose:Theinformation thatyou provide will beusedinevaluatingyour requestto determine
whether thereareany aquatic resources within the project areasubjecttofederaljurisdictionunder the regulatory
authorities referencedabove.
RoutineUses:This information maybeshared with the Departmentof Justice andotherfederal,state,and local
governmentagencies, and the public,andmaybe made available aspartof a public notice asrequiredbyfederal
law. Your nameand property location wherefederal jurisdiction is to bedetermined will beincluded in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD),which will bemade available tothe public on the District's website
andonthe Headquarters USAGEwebsite.
Disclosure:Submission ofrequested information is voluntary;however, ifinformation is notprovided, the
requestforanAJD cannotbeevaluatednorcananAJD be issued.
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:County/parish/borough:City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
Í»»¿¬¬¿½¸»¼¬¿¾´»
Ü»½»³¾»® îçô îðïé
Þ»®¬ Ô§²²ô íîðë Ú®»»¼±³ Ü®ò ݸ¿®´±¬¬»ô ÒÝ îèîðî
ÒÝ Ó»½µ´»²¾«®¹ з²»ª·´´»
íëòðéîééê óèðòèçííèé
ïé
Ô·¬¬´» Í«¹¿® Ý®»»µ
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be”waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be”navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______.
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: _________.
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 Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs:Aerial (Name & Date): ______.
or Other (Name & Date): ______.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: __________.
Other information (please specify): ______________.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.
ïæîìôðððñ Ú±®¬ Ó·´´
Ó»½µ´»²¾«®¹ ݱ«²¬§ ÍÍËÎÙÑ Í±·´­
ÒÉ× Ü·¹·¬¿´ Ü¿¬¿
Ú×ÎÓ Ð¿²»´ ììíçô Ú×ÎÓ Ð¿²»´ ììíè
îðïé Ó»½µò ݱò ß»®·¿´
Í·¬» °¸±¬±­ ø­»» ½±ª»® ´»¬¬»® º±® ¼¿¬»­÷
Site Number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
Type of aquatic
resource
Geographic authority to which
the aquatic resource “maybe”
subject
S1 - Little Sugar
Creek (LSC)-
Perennial
35.072776 -80.893387 18,000 lf Non-wetland
waters
Section 404
S2 - Intermittent 35.079271 -80.884718 110 lf Non-wetland
waters
Section 404
S3 -Intermittent 35.076633 -80.889079 140 lf Non-wetland
waters
Section 404
S4 - Perennial 35.073742 -80.893635 86 lf Non-wetland
waters
Section 404
S5 -Perennial 35.069365 -80.887980 90 lf Non-wetland
waters
Section 404
S6 - Intermittent 35.068836 -80.887438 120 lf Non-wetland
waters
Section 404
S7 – Perennial 35.068953 -80.891896 202 lf Non-wetland
waters
Section 404
S8 – Intermittent 35.069665 -80.897571 175 lf Non-wetland
waters
Section 404
Date:Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator:County:Longitude:
Total Points:42.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =Absent Weak Strong Score
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 0
0 0.5 1.5 1
0 0.5 1.5 1.5
0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =11
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 1
1.5 1 0 1.5
0 0.5 1.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5 1
3
C. Biology Subtotal =10
3 2 0 3
3 2 0 3
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 0
0 0.5 1.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5 1
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Banks are ~20' tall and the channel is ~30' wide
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
23. Crayfish 1
24. Amphibians 1
25. Algae 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)2
21. Aquatic Mollusks 2
22. Fish 1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 1
14. Leaf litter 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 2
8. Headcuts 2
9. Grade control 1
10. Natural valley 1
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
pool sequence 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate 2
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
8/12/2015
Lower LSC-
Stream 8 (S8 - Little Sugar
Creek)
35.072776
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Mecklenburg -80.893387
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:Fort Mill
21.5 Moderate
Date:Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator:County:Longitude:
Total Points:23.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =Absent Weak Strong Score
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 0
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 1.5
0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =5.5
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 0
1.5 1 0 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
3
C. Biology Subtotal =5
3 2 0 2
3 2 0 3
0 1 3 0
0 1 3 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
23. Crayfish 1
24. Amphibians 1
25. Algae 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)2
21. Aquatic Mollusks 2
22. Fish 1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 1
14. Leaf litter 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 2
8. Headcuts 2
9. Grade control 1
10. Natural valley 1
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate 2
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
8/12/2015 Lower LSC
Stream 2 (S2)35.079271
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Mecklenburg -80.884718
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:Fort Mill
13 Moderate
Date:Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator:County:Longitude:
Total Points:27
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =Absent Weak Strong Score
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 1
0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =7
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 0
1.5 1 0 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 1
3
C. Biology Subtotal =5
3 2 0 2
3 2 0 3
0 1 3 0
0 1 3 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
8/12/2015 Lower LSC
Stream 3 (S3)35.076633
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Mecklenburg -80.889079
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:Fort Mill
15 Moderate
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 2
8. Headcuts 2
9. Grade control 1
10. Natural valley 1
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 1
14. Leaf litter 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)2
21. Aquatic Mollusks 2
22. Fish 1
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
23. Crayfish 1
24. Amphibians 1
25. Algae 1
Date:Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator:County:Longitude:
Total Points:31
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =Absent Weak Strong Score
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 3
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 1
0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =9
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 1
1.5 1 0 1.5
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 1
3
C. Biology Subtotal =6
3 2 0 3
3 2 0 3
0 1 3 0
0 1 3 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
heavily eroded channel
approximately 30' vertical banks
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
23. Crayfish 1
24. Amphibians 1
25. Algae 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)2
21. Aquatic Mollusks 2
22. Fish 1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 1
14. Leaf litter 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 2
8. Headcuts 2
9. Grade control 1
10. Natural valley 1
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate 2
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
8/12/2015 Lower LSC
Stream 4 (S4)35.073742
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Mecklenburg -80.893635
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:Fort Mill
16 Moderate
Date:Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator:County:Longitude:
Total Points:36
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =Absent Weak Strong Score
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 0
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 1.5
0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =10
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 1
1.5 1 0 1.5
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 1
3
C. Biology Subtotal =6
3 2 0 3
3 2 0 3
0 1 3 0
0 1 3 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Heavily eroded perennial stream channel
no head-cut observed with study area, however, one is likely
present upstream
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
23. Crayfish 1
24. Amphibians 1
25. Algae 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)2
21. Aquatic Mollusks 2
22. Fish 1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 1
14. Leaf litter 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 2
8. Headcuts 2
9. Grade control 1
10. Natural valley 1
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate 2
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
8/12/2015 Lower LSC
Stream 5 (S5)35.069365
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Mecklenburg -80.887980
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:Fort Mill
20 Moderate
Date:Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator:County:Longitude:
Total Points:28.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =Absent Weak Strong Score
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 3
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 2
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 1
0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =7.5
0 1 3 2
0 1 3 1
1.5 1 0 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
3
C. Biology Subtotal =6
3 2 0 3
3 2 0 3
0 1 3 0
0 1 3 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
orginates from a pipe near the adjacent development
large headcut downstream near LSC
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
23. Crayfish 1
24. Amphibians 1
25. Algae 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)2
21. Aquatic Mollusks 2
22. Fish 1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 1
14. Leaf litter 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 2
8. Headcuts 2
9. Grade control 1
10. Natural valley 1
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate 2
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
8/12/2015 Lower LSC
Stream 6 (S6)35.068836
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Mecklenburg -80.887438
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:Fort Mill
15 Moderate
Photo Page 1
Photo 1 - Stream 2 (S2) – Intermittent looking upstream
Photo 2 - Stream 2 (S2) – Intermittent looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030
Photo Page 2
Photo 3 – Stream 3 (S3) – Perennial looking downstream
Photo 4 – Stream 3 (S3) – Perennial looking upstream.
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030
Photo Page 3
Photo 5 - Stream 4 (S4) –Intermittent looking downstream
Photo 6 - Stream 4 (S4) –Intermittent looking upstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030
Photo Page 4
Photo 7 - Stream 5 (S5) – Perennial looking upstream
Photo 8 - Stream 5 (S5) – Perennial looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030
Photo Page 5
Photo 9 - Stream 6 (S6) –Intermittent looking upstream
Photo 10 - Stream 6 (S6) –Intermittent looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030
Photo Page 6
Photo 11 – Stream 7 (S7) – Perennial looking upstream
Photo 12 – Stream 7 (S7) – Perennial looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030
Photo Page 7
Photo 13 - Stream 8 (S8) – Intermittent looking upstream
Photo 14 - Stream 8 (S8) – Intermittent looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030
Photo Page 8
Photo 15 - Stream 1 – Little Sugar Creek (S1) – Perennial looking downstream
Photo 16 - Stream 1 – Little Sugar Creek (S1) – Perennial looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030
Photo Page 9
Photo 17 - Stream 1 – Little Sugar Creek (S1) – Perennial looking downstream
Photo 18 - Stream 1 – Little Sugar Creek (S1) – Perennial looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030
Photo Page 10
Photo 19 - Stream 1 – Little Sugar Creek (S1) – Perennial looking upstream
Photo 20 - Stream 1 – Little Sugar Creek (S1) – Perennial looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By
Date Project Number
12/29/17 015236030

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

June 6, 2017

Adrienne Lasitter
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203

Re: Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway, Pineville, Mecklenburg County, ER 17-0901

Dear Ms. Lasitter:
Thank you for your letter of May 8, 2017, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

Lo w e r L SC R e sto ra tio n
So urces : Esr i, H ERE , D eL o r me , U SGS , Inte r m ap , INC R EM EN T P,NR C a n, Esr i Jap a n, M ET I, Esr i C hina (Ho ng Kong ), Esr i Kor ea, Esr i(T hai lan d ), M ap m yIn di a, N GC C , © Open Str eetM ap c ontr ib u to r s,and th e GIS U s er C om muni ty
NR Po int s
NR In dividu al Lis tin g
NR Listin g, Gon e
NRHD Ce nter Po int
NR Boun darie s
Na tio na l R eg ister Boun da ry
Bo un da ry o f D estro ye d/Re mov e d NR Listin g
SL Points
SL Ind ivid ua l En tr y
SL an d D OE en tr y
St u dy L ist Entry, G on e
SL an d D OE, G on e
SL HD Ce nter Point
SL DO EHD Ce nter Po int
SL B ounda ries
St u dy L ist Bou nda ry
Bo t h SL a nd D eter mine d Eligib le Boun da ry
DO E Point s
De te rmin ed Elig ib le
DO E, Go ne
SL an d D OE
SL an d D OE, G on e
DO EH D C e nter Po int
SL DO EHD Ce nter Po int
DO E Bounda ri es
De te rmin ed Elig ib le Bou nd ary
Bo t h DO E a nd Stud y L ist Boun da ry
Su rve yed Point s
Su rveyed Only
Su rveyed in NR H D
Su rveyed Only, Gon e
Su rveyed in NR H D, Go ne
Blo ckf ace- Multiple p ro per ties
Blo ckf ace in N R HD
Su rveyed Are a, No d esign ation
Su rveyed Are a in NRH D
Loca l La ndmark /Dist rict Point s
Loc al L and mar k
Loc al L and mar k , Go ne
Loc al H D C en te r Poin t
Loc al D istr ict Boun da rie s
NR Boun darie s
NR
NRD
SL B ounda ries
SL
SL DO E
DO E Bounda ri es
DO E
Loc al D istr ict Boun da rie s
Co unty Bo un da ries
Ap ri l 1 3 , 2 0 17
0 1 20.5 mi
0 1.5 30.75 km
1:4 4 ,5 7 0

NCNHDE-3325
April 13, 2017
Chris Tinklenberg
Kimley-Horn
200 South Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
RE: Lower LSC
Dear Chris Tinklenberg:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached ‘Documented Occurrences’ tables and map.
The attached ‘Potential Occurrences’ table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one-mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally-listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Lower LSC
April 13, 2017
NCNHDE-3325
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
Element
Occurrence
Rank
Accuracy Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Vascular Plant 3575 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil 1993-09-14 C 2-High ---Special
Concern
Vulnerable
G5T3 S3
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Polk Memorial State Historic Site NC DNCR, Division of State Historic Sites and
Properties
State
*NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally-listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on April 13, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Lower LSC
April 13, 2017
NCNHDE-3325
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
Element
Occurrence
Rank
Accuracy Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Freshwater
Bivalve
13485 Lasmigona decorata Carolina Heelsplitter 1918-Pre X 3-Medium Endangered Endangered G1 S1
Vascular Plant 3575 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil 1993-09-14 C 2-High ---Special
Concern
Vulnerable
G5T3 S3
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi?5-Very
Low
---Endangered G3 S2
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Catawba Lands Conservancy Preserve Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Polk Memorial State Historic Site NC DNCR, Division of State Historic Sites and
Properties
State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on April 13, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 4 of 4

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

11 May 2017

Ms. Addie Lasitter
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
200 South Tryon Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

Subject: Request for Environmental Review
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Dear Ms. Lasitter,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your email on 5
May 2017 requesting review and comments regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the lower Little
Sugar Creek Greenway. Biologists with NCWRC have reviewed the subject information. Comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).

Mecklenburg County proposes to construct a new greenway trail along the lower Little Sugar Creek from
James K Polk State Historic Site in Pineville to the North Carolina (N.C.) – South Carolina border in
Mecklenburg County, N.C. Little Sugar Creek occurs in the Catawba River basin and is classified as a
Class C stream by N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The proposed project will parallel the
lower Little Sugar Creek; thus, it will likely occur at least partially within the 100-year floodplain.

We have records of Carolina birdfoot-trefoil (Acmispon helleri), a state species of special concern, near
the proposed project. We also have historical records for Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a
federal and state endangered species, and tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum), a state endangered
species, within or near the proposed project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists
the endangered Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii), Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii),
and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and the threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) as having the potential to occur within the proposed project, if suitable habitat is present.
As such, consultation with the USFWS may be required. The lack of records from the site does not imply
or confirm the absence of federal or state-listed species or state Species of Greatest Conservation Need
listed in the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan (http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan); we are unaware of any
protected-species surveys having occurred within the vicinity of or in the project area.

Based upon the limited information provided, we offer the following recommendations to minimize
impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Page 2

11 May 2017
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway
Mecklenburg County

1. The project footprint should be surveyed for wetlands and streams to ensure there are no impacts
to surface waters. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas and streams aid in flood
control and water quality protection. United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404
Permits and NCDWR Section 401 Certifications are required for any impacts to jurisdictional
streams or wetlands.
1. The NCWRC recommends maintaining a minimum 100-foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer
along perennial streams, and a minimum 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands.
Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources, water quality, and aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the
project area. Also, wide riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and
for treatment of pollutants associated with urban stormwater.
2. Streams and wetland areas should be avoided where possible. Boardwalks should be used in
wetland areas. Bridges, rather than culverts, should be used for stream crossings. If culverts
must be used for stream crossings, then these should be designed to allow passage of aquatic life.
Furthermore, minimize development and fill in the 100-year floodplain.
3. Design the trail to reduce its impact on environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and
floodplains. Avoid or minimize fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Further information can be
found at https://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/trail-building-and-
design/developing-trails-in-sensitive-areas/.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing, construction
or disturbance. The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control
devices is strongly recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have
loose-weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing or similar products that have been reinforced with
plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife
species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources
including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills.
5. Manage non-native, invasive species during all phases of the project. Avoid the removal of large
trees at the edges of construction corridors. Re-seed disturbed areas with seed mixtures or native
plants that are beneficial to wildlife. Avoid fescue-based mixtures because fescue is invasive and
provides little benefit to wildlife. In open areas, consider planting native, wildflower seed mixes
that will create pollinator habitat within the project boundary. In addition, consider adding other
habitat-enhancing features, such as permeable fencing, bat boxes, and brush piles that will
minimize impacts from habitat loss.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this project. For
further information and free technical guidance from the NCWRC, please call [phone] or
email [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program