20021106 Ver 1_401 Application_20020710

' Charlo&-Mecklenhurg
STORM
WATER
Services ? -- - i
I July 5, 2002
Mr. Steve Chapin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
' Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
021106

Subject: Pre-Construction Notification for Nationwide Permit Nos. 3 and 13
City of Charlotte Storm Water Services
' Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project
Charlotte, North Carolina

' CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369
Phase 12
,
' Dear Mr. Chapin:
On behalf of the City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS), enclosed please find a
' completed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Joint Form (Attachment A) with accompanying
figures (Attachment B) for Nationwide Permit (NWP) Nos. 3 and 13 for the above-referenced
storm drainage improvements project. CSWS has retained Law Engineering and Environmental
Services, Inc. (LAW) to provide permitting as well as design/engineering services for this
project. This PCN is being submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in
1 accordance with the requirements of Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3 (for maintenance activities

' with new or additional riprap placement) and the requirements of NWP No. 13 (for bank
stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length). This submittal is the product of a
cooperative effort between CSWS and LAW.
' CSWS has proposed the Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project, located on
Littl
C
k
d
i
H
t
d
d t
ib
t
i
i
ff
li
i
ree
e
ope
an
assoc
a
e
unname
r
u
ar
es,
n an e
ort to e
m
nate flooding of

' streets and structures. The existing local drainage system experiences streambank erosion
ll
bl
h
d
d fl
s
ems, as we
as street,
pro
ouse, an
yar
ooding. To addre
s these problems, CSWS has

' proposed storm-water conveyance improvements, involving culvert replacements and
streambank stabilization at various lo
ati
ithi
th
t
d
C
l
ti
f
h
d
c
ons w
n
e s
u
y area.
omp
e
on o
t
e propose

1 storm drainage system improvements project will result in potential impacts to approximately

To report drainage problems: 336-RAIN

0

n

0

11
Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
jurisdictional stream channel, including 670 If of spot repair (i.e., involving small channel
segments typically ranging in length from approximately 21 If to 1001f) streambank stabilization
using riprap and 78 if of bank stabilization using gabions. Streambank stabilization activities in
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will be completed pursuant to NWP No. 13 - Bank Stabilization.
CSWS will also conduct minor maintenance activities, such as culvert and pipe system
replacements at 11 separate locations within the study area in order to bring these structures into
compliance with current design and safety standards. Culvert/pipe system replacement and
maintenance activities in jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will be completed pursuant to NWP
No. 3 - Maintenance.
The proposed project area is located in Charlotte, North Carolina approximately three and one-
half miles south/southwest of downtown Charlotte and includes the upper reaches of the Little
Hope Creek watershed. The project encompasses the Sedgefield, Colonial, and Ashbrook
Clawson neighborhoods, and is generally bordered to the north by South Boulevard, to the south
and west by Scaleybark Road, to the south by Woodlawn Road, and to the east by Marsh Road
(Figure 1, Attachment B).
Project Background
The Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project is a City of Charlotte Capital
Improvements Project (CIP). The City of Charlotte CEP program addresses large, complex,
costly, and interconnected drainage problems. These drainage problems generally may include
structural flooding, erosion, and infrastructure failure or code compliance. Occasionally, many
storm-water drainage problems will be evident in one geographical area. These individual
problems are grouped together so that the CSWS can repair the problem as efficiently and as cost
effectively as possible. CIPs require extensive planning, detailed design, easement acquisition,
and construction, and take approximately two to three years to complete from the planning stage
through construction.
The Marsh Road CIP project area includes approximately 5,200 linear feet (If) of stream
channels within a largely residential area. The principal stream channel in the project study area
is Little Hope Creek, a tributary of Little Sugar Creek (North Carolina Division of Water Quality
[DWQ] Stream Index Number l 1-137-8-3).
2

I

0

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
July 5, 2002
The majority of Little Hope Creek is a perennial channel that flows southerly through the project
area to its confluence with Little Sugar Creek, approximately 10,000 feet south of the project, in
the lower Catawba River Basin, Sub-basin 3-08-34. Little Hope Creek is the principal surface
water feature proximal to the project area. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map [U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 19911 classifies Little Hope Creek as a palustrine forested, broad-
leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded wetland (PFO1C), beginning just south of the project study
area. The NWI Map does not classify the unnamed tributaries to Little Hope Creek in the project
area. As tributaries of Little Sugar Creek, Little Hope Creek and its tributaries have been
characterized as Class C waters by DWQ.
Little Hope Creek has been historically impacted by channelization and periodic urban storm-
water runoff. Riparian buffer width and vegetative species composition vary considerably along
most stream channels in the study area and have been historically affected by residential
landscaping.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Field assessment activities in January and February 2001 allowed determinations to be made
regarding existing water resources. Based upon this field review, approximately 5,200 if of
jurisdictional stream channels were identified within the project area. No wetland areas were
identified within the anticipated construction limits. The existing stream channel network is
composed of Little Hope Creek and four of its tributaries. From upstream to downstream, these
tributaries enter Little Hope Creek in the following sequence: Colonial Tributary, Unnamed
Tributary No. 2, Unnamed Tributary No. 1, and Selwyn Farms Tributary (Figure 14, Attachment
B). The field review included stream assessments at seven of the culvert/pipe
replacement/maintenance activity locations utilizing the USACE Intermittent Channel Evaluation
Forms and DWQ Stream Classification Forms (Attachment Q. The four remaining culvert
rep] acement/maintenance activity locations were on obvious perennial channels, as were the
majority of the streambank stabilization locations, therefore no stream assessments were
conducted. In addition, LAW conducted three stream assessments at proposed culvert/pipe
replacement locations on channels determined to be non jurisdictional, ephemeral stream
3
1
Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
' CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
' channels. LAW also conducted a stream assessment at a streambank stabilization location on the
i
i
i
f Li
l
C
nterm
ttent port
on o
tt
e Hope
reek. The remainder of Little Hope Creek was determined
to be perennial.
The purpose of the stream assessments was to distinguish between non jurisdictional ephemeral
' t
d
di
ti
l i
t
itt
t
d
i
i
l
di
i
J
i
l i
i
reams, an
jur
s
c
ona
s
n
erm
en
an
perenn
a
streams.
ur
ct
ona
s
nterm
ttent streams
were further categorized as "important" and "unimportant." Those streams designated as
' perennial are considered important by the USACE and meet DWQ's definition of perennial (i.e.,
confirmed presence of fish, crayfish, or shellfish). The USACE provided field verification of
' these determinations on March 15, 2001. Representative photographs of the stream channels are
included in Attachment D.

Alternatives and Avoidance/Minimization

Several alternatives were considered for the proposed streambank stabilization activities and
' culvert replacement measures associated with the Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage
Improvements Project. To determine appropriate methods for addressing the existing storm

' drainage inadequacies resulting in streambank erosion and flooding, the project area and existing
storm drainage system were evaluated by CSWS, in cooperation with LAW. Little Hope Creek

' and its associated tributaries were evaluated to determine appropriate measures for streambank
erosion control methods
Amon
the o
tions
id
d
bi
i
i
th
d
ll
.
g
p
cons
ere
were
oeng
neer
ng me
o
s as we
as
the use of riprap and gabions, in conjunction with the removal of urban debris from the subject
streams (Priority IV restoration). Priority I, II and III restoration methods, as well as a no-action
alternative, were also considered. CSWS also considered a variety of culvert maintenance/
' replacement alternatives (to address flooding concerns), including culvert extensions, riprap
inlet/outlet protection, headwalls/wingwalls, and natural bottom arch culverts.

The project area poses a number of challenges, including an established riparian habitat along
many portions of the streambank, steep vertical banks located along the project corridor, as well
as urban constraints, namely the proximity of residences and private property along the targeted
' culverts, pipes, and streams (Attachment D, Photographs A - F). In addition, property owners
expressed concerns over potential losses of trees and canopy cover. Taking into consideration

1

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
these constraints in the project area, impacts to Little Hope Creek and its associated tributaries in
the project area are unavoidable to accomplish the proposed necessary improvements.
Alternatives for Streambank Stabilization/Enhancement
Priority I, H, and III restoration approaches are not feasible options primarily due to constraints
such as the proximity of homes and other structures to the channel in the project area. Priority I
restoration typically re-establishes a channel on the previous floodplain. In urban settings where
structures are located within the former floodplain, Priority I restoration is not feasible because it
would result in flood damage to existing urban development or would require the relocation of
existing structures. Priority II restoration typically involves re-establishment of the floodplain at
or above the existing flood elevation. If Priority H restoration were implemented, a new channel
would be excavated within the existing bed and the existing bed would be utilized as a
floodplain. The resulting increased sheer stress and velocities would require the upper banks to
be sloped and stabilized to reduce erosion during flood events. Priority R restoration is not
feasible as a new channel cannot be excavated in the existing narrow bed because residences and
other personal properties such as fences and sheds are located within 75 feet to less than five feet
of the top of the existing channel bank. Priority III restoration also typically requires the channel
to be excavated to achieve the desired dimension, patterns, and profile. Additionally, Priority III
restoration sometimes requires widening of the channel. Widening the channel would be limited
by the close proximity of residences. Due primarily to urban constraints, Priority IV restoration
was concluded to be the preferred option for the proposed channel stabilization project.
Soil bioengineering is a relatively un-intrusive, low-impact technique that utilizes plants to re-
establish natural streambank protection that has been damaged or lost. While soil bioengineering
is generally the most desirable streambank stabilization method with regards to aquatic and
wildlife habitat, the use of vegetation alone to stabilize the streambank in the Marsh Road project
area is not practical due to the proximity of residences, personal property, and steep vertical
banks located along the project corridor (Attachment D, Photographs A - F). Additionally,
grading that would be required for sloping of the bank would result in a loss of existing
established vegetation along the top of the streambank. Riprap will be used to stabilize the
streambank at selected locations along Little Hope Creek. The amount and size of riprap will
5

1

0

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
vary based upon calculated levels of shear stress, but will be less than 1 cubic yard per linear
foot.
Alternatives for Culvert Replacement
Several alternatives were also considered for the proposed culvert replacement activities. At the
culvert replacement/maintenance locations, alternatives considered included culvert extensions,
riprap inlet and outlet protection, headwalls and wingwalls, and natural bottom culverts. Initial
plans considered culvert extensions of 50 if at two locations along perennial sections of Little
Hope Creek (Hollis Culvert and Hartford Culvert 2). In addition, initial plans considered riprap
outlet protection of 50 if at these locations. Culvert abandonment was also considered, but is not
practicable, as it would negatively alter traffic patterns within established neighborhoods.
After evaluation of potential environmental impacts, public safety issues, and financial costs
associated with these options, the recommended alternative for culvert/pipe replacement was
designed to incorporate natural bottom (three-sided) culverts at four of the five perennial sections
of Little Hope Creek and Colonial Tributary, larger-diameter pipe systems at the fifth perennial
channel location and the intermittent channel locations, the addition or replacement of several
headwalls/wingwalls throughout the project area, and limited riprap inlet and/or outlet
protection. Reference Figure 3 in Attachment B, and Table 1 in Attachment C. No culvert
extensions are proposed. Riprap outlet protection on the perennial sections of Little Hope Creek
and Colonial Tributary are proposed to extend approximately 36 if from proposed culvert/pipe
outlets.
As previously discussed, initial plans considered culvert extensions of 50 If at two locations
along perennial sections of Little Hope Creek (Hollis Culvert and Hartford Culvert 2), as well as
501f of outlet protection at each location. To avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.
at these locations, the proposed culvert replacements/maintenance activities will not involve
extensions, and streambank stabilization utilizing gabion walls will be implemented, thereby
reducing the length of enclosed channel. In addition, riprap outlet protection has been reduced to
25 If at each location. Furthermore, the existing culverts at these locations, as well as at the
Belton Culvert and the Hartford Culvert on Colonial Tributary, will be replaced with three-sided,
6

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
natural bottom culverts. The natural bottom culverts will improve conditions of the streams by
providing enhanced aquatic habitat, as compared to conventional culverts. As a result of these
improvements, and considering the limited length of impact in comparison to the drainage
system, as well as to the entire watershed, compensatory mitigation is not proposed for the
activities to be conducted under NWP No. 3.
No-Action Alternative
A no-action alternative was also considered for the project. As discussed earlier, if
improvements are not made within the Little Hope Creek watershed area drainage system,
continued flooding of neighborhood streets, crawlspaces, basements, and yards will occur.
Additionally, existing channel erosion will continue and exacerbate sedimentation and clogging
of stream culverts and pipes as well as threats to personal property. Ultimately, this alternative
would result in structural damage, and public health and safety concerns with continued flooding
of low elevation areas. After evaluating conditions of the decaying roadway, culverts/pipes, and
eroding streambanks, the no-action. alternative was eliminated from further consideration since it
is not consistent with the project need and purpose and would fail to solve existing storm
drainage problems. The no-action alternative would allow existing stream conditions to continue
to degrade in the project area, leading to further bank erosion, downstream sedimentation, private
property loss, and public safety risk.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
The spot repair stabilization of severely eroded streambanks utilizing riprap and gabions is the
recommended alternative to address erosion problems within the project area.
Streambanks within the proposed project area have become steep and eroded due to channel
incision (Attachment D - Photograph D). It is proposed that the eroding streambank be
stabilized using Priority IV restoration methods (Rosgen, 1997). Priority IV restoration is
typically implemented where urban constraints limit restoration alternatives. Priority IV
stabilization methods are used to decrease bed and streambank erosion, often through the use of
concrete, gabions, boulders, and bioengineering methods. The land needed for such
7

fl

I

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
improvements is minimal, additionally making Priority IV restoration appropriate for the
proposed project as urban constraints (i.e., close proximity of residential structures and
appurtenances) serve as the primary restricting factor for other alternatives.
The project corridor encompasses an established vegetative riparian habitat consisting of
hardwood trees and herbaceous plants. Additionally, encroachments on personal property as
well as access easements were taken into account in design considerations.
Riprap and gabions proposed for this project will be used at spot locations to stabilize severely-
eroding streambanks where erosion poses an immediate threat, such as loss of property. This
technique offers sturdy support and enforcement and is feasible in that it meets the mechanical
needs of the channel. Riprap and gabions can be utilized in areas where space is limited, such as
in urban neighborhoods where dwellings are located close to the stream channel.
The stabilization activities (detailed on Table 1 in Attachment E) will involve approximately 748
If of stream channel (approximately 848 feet of streambank). Riprap and gabions proposed for
this project will be used to build support or an abutment where erosion poses a threat, such as
loss of property. This technique offers sturdy support and enforcement and is feasible in that it
meets the mechanical needs of the channel. Riprap and gabions can be utilized in areas where
space is limited, such as in urban neighborhoods where dwellings are located close to the stream
channel. Gabions are necessary on one 41 If segment (82 feet of streambank) and one 25 If
segment (50 feet of streambank), each located in Reach I, since re-sloping of the bank is not
possible due to the close proximity of private property. The remainder of the stabilization
activities in Reach I, as well as each stabilization activity in Reaches II and III, will utilize riprap.
In addition, a gabion drop structure is proposed on 12 If of Selwyn Farms Tributary (24 feet of
streambank) at its confluence with Little Hope Creek (Reach IV). The Selwyn Farms Tributary
outfalls into Little Hope Creek at a point approximately 4 feet above the Little Hope Creek mean
high water (MHW). The drop structure will serve to dissipate erosive energy resulting from this
grade change and will provide velocity control. The use of riprap on additionally selected
vertical banks (approximately 670 If) will provide a sturdy support to protect the streambank
from additional erosion. Refer to Figure 4 and Table 1 in Attachment B and E, respectively, for
Reach numbers and locations of streambank stabilization.
8
ri

11.

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
While the use of riprap and gabions provides a solution to the eroding streambank problem,
installation results in short-term impacts to stream habitat, including the suppression of
vegetation in the streambank. Joint plantings in riprap blankets will be considered at selected
locations to re-establish a vegetative cover. Joint planting involves the placing of live stakes in
the joints of riprap (Attachment B Figure 7). Joint plantings are intended to increase the
effectiveness of the rock system by forming a living root mat underneath the rock and to improve
the aesthetic and habitat value of the riprap. Locations for joint plantings will be field
determined. Typical construction details of riprap and gabion placement techniques are
illustrated in Figures 5 through 13, in Attachment B.
With respect to the culvert replacement and maintenance activities, as a minimization strategy,
the four culverts to be replaced in the perennial sections of Little Hope Creek (Photographs G
and H, Attachment D) and Colonial Tributary were designed to incorporate natural bottom
(three-sided) culverts, rather than implementing in-kind replacement. In-kind replacement was
eliminated from consideration due to the greater benefits of utilizing natural bottom culverts.
Natural bottom culverts have non-structural bottoms that allow for the restoration of a natural
streambed. The natural bottom culverts will improve conditions of the streams by providing
enhanced aquatic habitat compared to conventional box culverts. Refer to Figure 3 in
Attachment B and Table 2 in Attachment E for information regarding the culvert and pipe system
rep] acement/maintenance activities.
As detailed on Table 2 (Attachment E), the proposed elements of the 11 separate and complete
NWP No. 3 culvert/pipe replacement/maintenance activity projects will result in unavoidable
impacts to stream channel. Impacts to perennial stream channels will range from 35 if to 421f at
each replacement location. Impacts to intermittent, important stream channels will include 32 If
and 121f at two replacement locations, respectively. Impacts to intermittent, unimportant stream
channels will range from 18 to 45 feet at each replacement location. Impacts associated with
riprap inlet/outlet stabilization resulting from implementation of required design standards have
been minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Project construction associated with the culvert and pipe system replacement and maintenance
activities will generally begin at the downstream project limit and will proceed to the upstream
9
r
Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
' project limit, so that increased stream flow volume resulting from pipe upsizing is
accommodated. However, minor variations may be necessary to accommodate construction
' schedules, easement acquisitions, and property owner requests. Spot repair streambank
stabilization measures will typically progress from upstream to downstream. Construction access
and activities will take place from the top of the bank, and construction vehicles will not be
driven into the stream. There will be no adverse impacts to the stream's hydrologic or hydraulic
performance as a result of the proposed storm drainage improvements.
r
The proposed project activities are necessary in order to maintain public safety, reduce
streambank erosion and subsequent sedimentation, enhance riparian buffer areas, and protect
adjacent structures. Left in their current state, conditions at the proposed sites would continue to
' degrade, resulting in potential public safety hazards, private property damage, infrastructure
impacts, and continued impairment of the stream environment and riparian habitat. The
proposed project is consistent with CSWS's goal of maintaining and improving area storm-water
systems in the interest of community, wildlife, and natural resources. The completion of this
project will result in minimal, temporary, negative impacts to the remaining streambank and
channel, and should provide positive long-term benefits to aquatic habitat, riparian buffers, and
r water quality within the Little Sugar Creek watershed.
Regulatory Implications
r Nationwide and regional conditions for NWP Nos. 3 and 13 will be met by the CSWS design and
communicated to CSWS's contractors. Culvert maintenance activities will include measures to
promote fish and other aquatic organism passage. USACE regional conditions for use on all
Nationwide Permits require the culvert inverts be buried at least one foot below the bed of the
' stream for culverts greater than 48 inches in diameter. Bottomless culverts and/or the burying of
culvert inverts below the bed of the stream have been incorporated in the project where feasible
' and practicable. At two locations, culverts will not be buried, due to engineering constraints.
' The project designs comply with conditions of Section 401 General Certification (GC) for
projects eligible for NWP No. 13 (NCDENR DWQ Water Quality Certification 3353). The
designs associated with the l l separate and complete culvert/pipe replacement and maintenance
1
1 10

f

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
projects also comply with conditions of Section 401 General Certification (GC) for projects
eligible for NWP No. 3 (DWQ Water Quality Certification 3376). Since the culvert/pipe
replacement and maintenance projects will result in stream impacts within the Catawba River
Basin, written concurrence is required from DWQ.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices, which equal or exceed those outlined in the
most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual" or "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual," whichever is more appropriate, will be
utilized to prevent exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard. Additionally,
project sediment and erosion control measures placed in waters will be removed and the natural
grade restored after the Division of Land Resources or delegated local program has released the
project.
As part of its Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Program, Mecklenburg
County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) has established streamside buffers
for perennial waters throughout Mecklenburg County, to include the establishment of buffers for
the targeted Little Hope Creek and its tributaries. Stream buffer widths of 100 feet, 50 feet, and
35 feet have been established for approximately 1,2001f, 4,8001f, and 1,2001f, respectively, for
portions of Little Hope Creek within the proposed project area.
Following project implementation, disturbed areas will be stabilized, to comply with SWIM
-buffer regulations. According to October 30, 2000 SWIMbuffer guidance documentation
(Section III-E-h), projects characterized as "Drainage Improvements/Repairs for Maintenance
([including] projects completed by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services)" require post-
construction stabilization, but not mitigation.

C

f'.

C

C
[I
ri

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
Cultural Resources and Protected Species
A letter, dated January 19, 2001, was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
requesting information regarding potential archaeological and/or cultural resource issues in the
study area. A letter from SHPO dated March 1, 2001 indicates there are no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project.
Copies of the correspondence are included in Attachment F.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database was reviewed to evaluate the
potential occurrence of threatened or endangered species within Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. This database indicated that there are seven federally and/or state endangered species
which may occur in Mecklenburg County, namely the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), Georgia aster (Aster georgianus), tall larkspur
(Delphinium exaltatum), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
A letter requesting information, dated January 19, 2001, was forwarded to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine the presence of federally-listed or state-listed
endangered or threatened species, candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened
species, or of critical habitat in the proposed project permit area (Attachment G). Return receipt
confirmed USFWS's receipt of the aforementioned letter, however, as of the date of this
document, USFWS has not commented on the proposed project.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) was contacted via facsimile on January
22, 2001 to determine the presence of any federally-listed or state-listed or candidate endangered
or threatened species or critical habitat within the permit area of the proposed project. On
January 30, 2001, LAW received a response from NCNHP (dated January 29, 2001) indicating
that they there are no records of rare species, high quality natural communities, or significant
natural heritage areas within the area anticipated to be impacted by the Marsh Road CIP. Copies
of the NCNHP correspondence are included in Attachment H.
12

F

1

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July 5, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
State (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act Documentation
According to a 1998 memorandum authored by Coleen Sullins (NCDENR DWQ) documenting
interim stream and wetland thresholds for. DWQ review under the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA), projects disturbing a total of greater than 500 linear feet of perennial stream
channels require SEPA review. Since the proposed Marsh Road CIP activities discussed in this
PCN will disturb more than 500 linear feet of perennial stream channel with hard structure, these
activities fall within the SEPA review threshold and require preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and corresponding SEPA review. An EA was prepared by CSWS and LAW,
and circulated through DENR for review and comment (DWQ Project No. 1163). DENR's
review has concluded with the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (Attachment I) and
subsequent circulation through the State Clearinghouse, concluding the project sponsor's
obligation pursuant to SEPA.
13

1

E

H

u

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project - NWP Nos. 3 and 13 July S, 2002
CSWS Project No. 512-00-057
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
Closing
Your prompt decision in this matter and corresponding processing of this pre-construction
notification will be greatly appreciated. Copies of this application have been forwarded to Mr.
John Dorney of the DWQ. Please do not hesitate to contact Mary C. Murray
In kmurrayaa,ci.charlotte. nc.us or 704-336-4588, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CHARLOTTE STORM WATER SERVICES
Mary C. Murra , P.W.S.
Charlotte Storm Water Services
Permitting and Mitigation Administrator
Michael A. Iagnocco, P.W.S.
Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
Principal Environmental Scientist
MCM/MAr'6II WITH PERMISSION
Enclosures: Attachment A - Pre-Construction Notification
Attachment B - Figures/Approximate Waters of the U.S Boundary Map
Attachment C - Stream Assessment Forms/Wetland Data Form
Attachment D - Photographs
Attachment E - Tables
Attachment F - SHPO Correspondence
Attachment G - USFWS Correspondence
Attachment H - NCNHP Correspondence
Attachment I - FONSI
14

?• r
°? W A Tic
O G
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
For Section 404 and/or Section 10 Nationwide, Regional and General Permits, Section 401
General Water Quality Certifications, and Riparian Buffer and Watershed Buffer Rules
' This form is to be used for projects qualifying for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(DWQ) associated General 401 Water Quality Certifications. This form is also to be used for any
project requiring approval under any Riparian Buffer Rules implemented by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality. This form should not be used if you are requesting an Individual 404 Permit or Individual 401
' Water Quality Certification. The USACE Individual Permit application form is available online at
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Penn app.htm.
' The USACE is the lead regulatory agency. To review the requirements for the use of Nationwide,
Regional or General permits, and to determine which permit applies to your project, please go to the
USACE website at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/regtour.htm, or contact one of the field
' offices listed at the end of this application. The website also lists the responsible project manager for
each county in North Carolina and provides additional information regarding the identification and
regulation of wetlands and waters of the U.S.

u

The DWQ issues a corresponding Certification (General or Individual), and cannot tell the applicant
which 401 Certification will apply until the 404 Permit type has been determined by the USACE.
Applicants are encouraged to visit DWQ's 401/Wetlands Unit website at
http://h2o.enr.state. nc.us/ncwetlands to read about current requirements for the 401 Water Quality
Certification Program and to determine whether or not Riparian Buffer Rules are applicable. The
applicant is also advised to read the full text of the General Certification (GC) matching the specific 404
Permit requested. In some cases, written approval for some General Certifications is not required,
provided that the applicant adheres to all conditions of the GC. Applicants lacking access to the internet
should contact DWQ's Central Office in Raleigh at [phone].
Trout Waters Coordination - Special coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is also required for projects occurring in any of North Carolina's twenty-five
counties that contain trout waters. In such cases, the applicant should contact the appropriate NCWRC
regional coordinator (listed by county on the last page of this application).
Page I

' CAMA Coordination - If the project occurs in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on
the last page of this application) the applicant should also contact the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) at [phone]. DCM will determine whether or not the project involves a
designated Area of Environmental Concern, in which case DCM will act as the lead permitting agency.
In such cases, DCM will require a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit and will coordinate
the 404/401 Permits.
USACE Permits Submit one copy of this form, along with supporting narratives, maps, data forms,
photos, etc. to the applicable USACE Regulatory Field Office (addresses are listed at the end of this
application). Upon receipt of an application, the USACE will determine if the application is complete as
' soon as possible, not to exceed 30 days. This PCN form is designed for the convenience of the applicant
to address information needs for all USACE Nationwide, Regional or General permits, as well as
information required for State authorizations, certifications, and coordination. Fully providing the
information requested on this form will result in a complete application for any of the USACE
Nationwide, Regional or General permits. To review the minimum amount of information that must be
provided for a complete PCN for each USACE Nationwide permit, see Condition 13, 65 Fed.Reg. 12893
' (March 9, 2000), available at htlp://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/nwfinalFedRejz.pdf.
Processing times vary by permit and begin once the application has been determined to be complete.
Please contact the appropriate regulatory field office for specific answers to permit processing periods.
' 401 Water Quality Certification or Buffer Rules - All information is required unless otherwise stated
as optional. Incomplete applications will be returned. Submit seven collated copies of all USACE
' Permit materials to the Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. If written approval is required or specifically requested for a 401
Certification, then a non-refundable application fee is required. In brief, if project impacts include less
' than one acre of cumulative wetland/water impacts and less than 150 feet cumulative impacts to
streams, then a fee of $200 is required. If either of these thresholds is exceeded, then a fee of $475 is
required. A check made out to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, with the specific name of
the project or applicant identified, should be stapled to the front of the application package. For more
information, see the DWQ website at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/fees.html. The fee must be
attached with the application unless the applicant is a federal agency in which case the check may be
' issued from a separate office. In such cases, the project must be identifiable on the U.S. Treasury check
so that it can be credited to the appropriate project. If written approval is sought solely for Buffer Rules,
the application fee does not apply, and the applicant should clearly state (in a cover letter) that only
Buffer Rule approval is sought in writing. Wetlands or waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to
issuance or waiver of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Upon receipt of a complete application
for a 401 Certification, the Division of Water Quality has 60 days to prepare a written response to the
' applicant. This may include a 401 Certification, an on-hold letter pending receipt of additional
requested information, or denial.

I Page 2

fl
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
' I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
' ? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP Nos. 3 and 13
' 3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: D
' II. Applicant Information
' 1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Ms. Mary C. Murray, P.W.S., Mitigation and Permitting Administrator
Mailing Address: City of Charlotte Storm Water Services
600 East Fourth Street 14`h floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
' Telephone Number: 704-336-4588 Fax Number: 704-336-6586
E-mail Address: mkmurray6a 6charlotte.nc.us
' 2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation: N/A
Mailing Address: N/A
Telephone Number: N/A Fax Number: N/A
' E-mail Address: N/A

Page 3

III. Project Information
' Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
' 1. Name of project: Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
' County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): North of Woodlawn Road,
' between South Boulevard and Park Road
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N/A
' (Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
The project area largely consists of single family residences.

7. Property size (acres): N/A
' 8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Little Hope Creek
9. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work:
The City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) has proposed stormwater improvements
' in an effort to eliminate flooding of streets and structures. The existing local drainage system
Page 4

t
t

it

1
F

i

[I

experiences streambank erosion problems, as well as street, house, and yard flooding. To
address these problems, CSWS has proposed storm-water conveyance improvements, involving
streambank stabilization at various locations within the study area. To protect public safety
and property and to enhance the natural and beneficial functions of waterways and their
associated riparian corridors, CSWS has an obligation to the communities of Charlotte to
maintain and improve area storm-water systems. In keeping with their commitment to
Charlotte communities, CSWS has proposed improvements to the storm drainage system
within the Little Hope Creek watershed, encompassing the Sedgefield, Colonial, and Ashbrook
Clawson Village neighborhoods. CSWS has proposed storm-water improvement efforts along
approximately 5,200 if of jurisdictional stream channels. Several residences and personal
properties, such as fences and sheds, within the project area are within 75 feet to five feet,
respectively, of the top of the channel bank. The need for the project is based on the severity of
flooding and streambank erosion along stream channels within the neighborhoods. The
localized flooding and eroding streambanks are causing a threat to property owners,
jeopardizing public safety, and degrading the quality of the waterway.
To help property owners, as well as to enhance the natural benefits of the waterway, CSWS has
proposed storm drainage improvements to include the stabilization/enhancement of
streambanks through the use of riprap and gabion solutions, and the removal of unpleasing
debris, such as clothing, trash, and bicycles. Without the proposed improvements, flooding and
erosion will continue to be a problem. Left in its current state, the existing flooding and eroding
streambanks will affect public safety causing damage to personal properties and potentially
damaging private infrastructure, including buildings, and will perpetuate the continued
degradation of the stream environment and riparian habitat. The proposed project will help to
satisfy CSWS's goal of maintaining and improving area storm-water systems in the interest of
the communities, wildlife, and natural resources. It is anticipated that the completion of this
project will result in positive, long-term impacts to the storm drainage system, to the
streambank and channel, to surrounding properties, and to aquatic and wildlife habitat.
In addition to the streambank stabilization activities, CSWS plans to conduct 11 separate and
complete projects involving minor maintenance activities (such as culvert and pipe system
replacements) at specified locations within the study area. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. associated with culvert/pipe system replacement and maintenance activities are
necessary to bring these structures into compliance with current design and safety standards,
and are to be completed pursuant to USACE NWP No. 3 - Maintenance. Reference Figure 3 in
Attachment B, and Table 2 in Attachment E for culvert replacement details.
List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Backhoes, tractors, track hoes,
and dump trucks may be used for the proposed project.
11. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The area in the vicinity of the subject
property consists of single family residences.
Page 5

' IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
' buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No previous permits have been requested for this project.
I V.

VI.

11

1

Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: No additional permit requests are anticipated this time. However, CSWS will
provide appropriate notification in the event that additional permits are required in the future.
Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain* *
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://wNvw.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
Page 6

1

1

List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0.0
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.0
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams:
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on map) (linear feet) Before Impact (please specify)
Riprap and
I gabion bank 455 Little Hope Creek 10 feet Perennial
stabilization
II Riprap bank 100 Little Hope Creek 9 feet Intermittent
stabilization (Important)
II Riprap bank
stabilization 98 Little Hope Creek 10 feet Perennial
III Riprap bank 83 UT #1 to Little Hope 4 feet Intermittent
stabilization Creek (Unimportant)
Gabion drop Selwyn Farms Intermittent
IV structure 12
Tributary 2 feet
(Important)
stabilization
x List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.aov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 748 if
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
NA

* List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): F_? uplands F-1 stream E] wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Page 7
n
' Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
' information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
' Several alternatives were considered for the proposed streambank stabilization activities and
culvert replacement measures associated with the Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage
t Improvements Project. To determine appropriate methods for addressing the existing storm
drainage inadequacies resulting in streambank erosion and flooding, the project area and existing
storm drainage system were evaluated by CSWS, in cooperation with LAW. Little Hope Creek and
its associated tributaries were evaluated to determine appropriate measures for streambank
' erosion control methods. Among the options considered were bioengineering methods as well as the
use of riprap and gabions, in conjunction with the removal of urban debris from the subject
streams (Priority IV restoration). Priority I, II and III restoration methods, as well as a no-action
alternative, were also considered. CSWS also considered a variety of culvert maintenance/
replacement alternatives (to address flooding concerns), including culvert extensions, riprap
inlet/outlet protection, headwalls/wingwalls, and natural bottom arch culverts.
The project area poses a number of challenges, including an established riparian habitat along
many portions of the streambank, steep vertical banks located along the project corridor, as well as
' urban constraints, namely the proximity of residences and private property along the targeted
culverts, pipes, and streams (Attachment D, Photographs A - F). In addition, property owners
expressed concerns over potential losses of trees and canopy cover. Taking into consideration these
constraints in the -project area, impacts to Little Hope Creek and its associated tributaries in the
' project area are unavoidable to accomplish the proposed necessary improvements.
Alternatives for Streambank Stabilization/Enhancement

Priority I, H, and III restoration approaches are not feasible options primarily due to constraints
such as the proximity of homes and other structures to the channel in the project area. Priority I
restoration typically re-establishes a channel on the previous floodplain. In urban settings where
' structures are located within the former floodplain, Priority I restoration is not feasible because it
would result in flood damage to existing urban development or would require the relocation of
existing structures. Priority II restoration typically involves re-establishment of the floodplain at or
' above the existing flood elevation. If Priority H restoration were implemented, a new channel
would be excavated within the existing bed and the existing bed would be utilized as a floodplain.
The resulting increased sheer stress and velocities would require the upper banks to be sloped and
' stabilized to reduce erosion during flood events. Priority II restoration is not feasible as a new
channel cannot be excavated in the existing narrow bed because residences and other personal
properties such as fences and sheds are located within 75 feet to less than five feet of the top of the

Page 8

' existing channel bank. Priority III restoration also typically requires the channel to be excavated to
achieve the desired dimension, patterns, and profile. Additionally, Priority III restoration
sometimes requires widening of the channel. Widening the channel would be limited by the close
proximity of residences. Due primarily to urban constraints, Priority IV restoration was concluded
to be the preferred option for the proposed channel stabilization project.
Soil bioengineering is a relatively un-intrusive, low-impact technique that utilizes plants to re-
establish natural streambank protection that has been damaged or lost. While soil bioengineering
' is generally the most desirable streambank stabilization method with regards to aquatic and
wildlife habitat, the use of vegetation to stabilize the streambank in the Marsh Road project area is
not practical due to the proximity of residences, personal propeMy, and steep vertical banks located
' along the project corridor (Attachment D, Photographs A - F). Additionally, grading that would
be required for sloping of the bank would result in a loss of existing established vegetation along the
top of the streambank. Riprap will be used to stabilize the streambank at selected locations along
Little Hope Creek. The amount and size of riprap will vary based upon calculated levels of shear
stress, but will be less than 1 cubic yard per linear foot.
Alternatives for Culvert Replacement
Several alternatives were also considered for the proposed culvert replacement activities. At the
culvert replacement/maintenance locations, alternatives considered included culvert extensions,
' riprap inlet and outlet protection, headwalls and wingffalls, and natural bottom culverts. Initial
plans considered culvert extensions of 50 if at two locations along perennial sections of Little Hope
Creek (Hollis Culvert and Hartford Culvert 2). In addition, initial plans considered riprap outlet
' protection of 50 If at these locations. Culvert abandonment was also considered, but is not
practicable, as it would negatively alter traffic patterns within established neighborhoods.
' After evaluation of potential environmental impacts, public safety issues, and financial costs
associated with these options, the recommended alternative for culvert/pipe replacement was
designed to incorporate natural bottom (three-sided) culverts at four of the five perennial sections
of Little Hope Creek and Colonial Tributary, larger-diameter pipe systems at the fifth perennial
channel location, and the intermittent channel locations, the addition or replacement of several
headwalls/wingwalls throughout the project area, and limited riprap inlet and/or outlet protection.
Reference Figure 3 in Attachment B, and Table 2 in Attachment E. No culvert extensions are
' proposed. Riprap outlet protection on the perennial sections of Little Hope Creek and Colonial
Tributary are proposed to extend no more than 36 if from proposed culvert/pipe outlets.
As previously discussed, initial plans considered culvert extensions of 50 If at two locations along
perennial sections of Little Hope Creek (Hollis Culvert and Hartford Culvert 2), as well as 50 if of
outlet protection at each location. To avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S. at these
' locations, the proposed culvert replacements/maintenance activities will not involve extensions, and
streambank stabilization utilizing gabion walls will be implemented, thereby reducing the length of
enclosed channel. In addition, riprap outlet protection has been reduced to 25 If at each location.
' Furthermore, the existing culverts at these locations, as well as at the Belton Culvert and the
Hartford Culvert on Colonial Tributary, will be replaced with three-sided, natural bottom culverts.
The natural bottom culverts will improve conditions of the streams by providing enhanced aquatic
habitat, as compared to conventional culverts. As a result of these improvements, and considering
the limited length of impact in comparison to the drainage system, as well as to the entire
watershed, compensatory mitigation is not proposed for the activities to be conducted under NWP
No. 3.
Page 9

No-Action Alternative
A no-action alternative was also considered for the project. As discussed earlier, if improvements
are not made within the Little Hope Creek watershed area drainage system, continued flooding of
neighborhood streets, crawlspaces, basements, and yards will occur. Additionally, existing channel
' erosion will continue and exacerbate sedimentation and clogging of stream culverts and pipes as
well as threats to personal property. Ultimately, this alternative would result in structural damage,
and public health and safety concerns with continued flooding of low elevation areas. After
' evaluating conditions of the decaying roadway, culverts/pipes, and eroding streambanks, the no-
action alternative was eliminated from further consideration since it is not consistent with the
project need and purpose and would fail to solve existing storm drainage problems. The no-action
' alternative would allow existing stream conditions to continue to degrade in the project area,
leading to further bank erosion, downstream sedimentation, private property loss, and public safety
risk.
VIII. Mitigation
' DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
' Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
' aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
' and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
' If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
t lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
' http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmaide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
' as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
' of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Page 10

After evaluation of project area constraints, potential environmental impacts, public safety
issues, landowner concerns, and financial costs, riprap installation was selected as the preferred
' alternative for streambank stabilization. Stabilization efforts are to be performed at "spot
locations," thereby minimizing impacts by not affecting the entire length of,the stabilization
reaches. Riprap on eroding, barren banks will increase habitat structure and will reduce
' downstream turbidity. These stabilization measures will reduce streambank erosion, and will
provide positive long-term benefits to aquatic habitat, riparian buffers, and water quality.
Since the proposed stabilization efforts should reduce streambank erosion and downstream
' sedimentation, these efforts are proposed as self-mitigating.
The proposed culvert replacement efforts will largely be in-kind maintenance activities. Riprap
' inlet and outlet stabilization will augment existing riprap in many locations. Four existing
conventional culverts will be replaced with bottomless arch culverts. As a result of these
factors, the proposed culvert replacement activities should produce no more than minimal
' detrimental impacts. No additional mitigation is proposed for these culvert replacement
activities.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
' Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.eni,.state.nc.us/wm/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
' Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
' Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
' IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
' Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
' Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No Fj
' If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
' Yes ® No ?
' Page 11

X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
' It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
' map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
' Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify_--------)?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
' Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.

Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
As Dart of its Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Program, Mecklenburg
County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) has established streamside buffers for
perennial waters throughout Mecklenburg County, to include the establishment of buffers for the
targeted Little Hope Creek and its tributaries. Stream buffer widths of 100 feet, 50 feet, and 35 feet
have been established for approximately 1,200 If, 4,800 If, and 1,200 If, respectively, for portions of
Little Hope Creek within the proposed project area. Following project implementation, disturbed
areas will be stabilized, to comely with SWIM buffer regulations. According to October 30, 2000
SWIM buffer guidance documentation (Section III-E-h), projects characterized as "Drainage
Improvements/Repairs for Maintenance (lincludingl projects completed by Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services)" require post-construction stabilization, but not mitigation.
Page 12

I X1.

Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The project area is connected to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Department sanitary sewer
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No N
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes E] No N
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
' It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
' Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)

Page 13

US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham Wilson
' US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes Yadkin
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones Pitt
' US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir Tyrrell
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin Washington
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico Wayne
' Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans *Croatan National Forest Only
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
' US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
' Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Fax: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
' US Fish and Wildlife Service / National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service
Raleigh Field Office Asheville Field Office Habitat Conservation Division
Post Office Box 33726 160 Zillicoa Street Pivers Island
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Asheville, NC 28801 Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]

North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality Division of Water Quality State Historic Preservation Office
401 Wetlands Unit Wetlands Restoration Program Department Of Cultural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center 1619 Mail Service Center 4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
' Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
' i
es
CAMA and NC Coastal Count
' Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Page 14

1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
3855 Idlewild Road
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
Telephone: [phone]
Mountain Region Coordinator
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway
Waynesville, NC 28786
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Bertie Craven
Brunswick Currituck
Camden Dare
Carteret Gates
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Alleghany Caldwell
Ashe Mitchell
Avery Stokes
Burke Surry
Buncombe Henderson
Cherokee Jackson
Clay Macon
Graham Madison
Haywood McDowell
Page 15
Hyde Pender
New Hanover Perquimans
Onslow Tyrrell
Pamlico Washington
Watauga
Wilkes
Polk
Rutherford
Swain
Transylvania
Yancey

0

?a
04? ..
W?
Selwyn Farms Tributary
-
6 °N„
F _S, An m
N; ?cx) ??5 b Lj-
5
10,
fast Jr ? t \ i {?
likoo
1
Colonial Tributary
???y
Unnamed Tributary #2
..' If,
? V
` ?Y111 ,
Unnamed Tributary #1 \
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series: Charlotte East, NC (1988)
AWW
Urbanized Area
r _ _ _? Approximate Study Area Boundary North Carolina Vicinity Map
Streams
Roads
Structures
Areas of Potential Streambank. Stabilization
and Storm-water Improvements
Mecklenburg County
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE Prepared: 7-UL 913/01
Checked: ME 7?3 o2
G:/projects/30140Environmental/Jobs/20000369-City SWS/12Marsh/Marsh Road Location Map3.ppt
City of Charlotte
Storm Water Services Site
Marsh Road Area Storm Location
LAW
Drainage Improvements LAWGIBB GROUP MEMBER
Mecklenburg County, NC I A& Project 30100-0-0369 Figure 1

Source: USDA Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sheet 7 of 13 (1976).
wk>? Soil Associations
r Approximate Study Area Boundary
Streams
Areas of Potential Streambank Stabilization
and Storm-water Improvements
AOW
North Carolina Vicinitv Map

Mecklenburg County
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE Prepared: L1_ R 1 f t)
Checked: ?1/1 D z
G:/projects/30140Environmental/Jobs/20000369-City SWS/12Marsh/Marsh Road Soil Map.ppt
City of Charlotte
Storm Water Services
SOUS Map
Marsh Road Area Storm LAW
I. I
Drainage Improvements LAWGIBB GROUP MEMBER
Mecklenburg County, NC Project 30100-0-0369 Figure 2
o
o ?
4 ?
? o
0
O
_Q
0
0
0
Q

d
v
C
n ?
v mar/ d jl y _ J o ~
U E
u
do i d E
l w 41
N U ~ o
Fi Z w
V Z
wo Z W>
o o Z E- 94 M
W W
0.4
< w E- M Z
coo WZvia rn
C14 E" I&I X
0 2J
W <?
> Q.W U] C)
(??] O
Q V J W O <? o
o
m W V)
CO a
? N Q x ou
f a? z
a LL
Z Z U CLm
? Z ? y u'
W
N
d o
e
a p `°
CY)
Lo e p D
a
Q o
o ? o
a lk F
J 0 M
Y Y
0 6 0
S V ' Q a o
ell z
m
W
C g V W O
0 e W a 0 o Z Y
CL
0 = o z o
2 a z F a
O
J ' Z Z
H m a
H
a Z a U
(~!1 U 0 a Q
a ao Z) o
Z O Q W CL
J N O
0 O Q /1 U~ W I-
c ?= N
° J~ O? O
?oo 00
Q. Q
O ? { U
Q Z LL.
0 0
° Z
z o
D a
0
LLJ
1 0 {
0
„/? ^ '"? ? NOSI2l2NHYY l0 fl 80 MDb?NYld315 HS2ttlW 69£0 OOOZ S80P 1tl1N3NNONNN3 0610E\S133f'O8d
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
W
J
R iii
0
N F
a s v
a ?.. H
< v v O
a ? a 12.2 W
CL CL
w c Q
J
O N •N p LL 9
O J cn a c
U C)y W c?
~ u 0 m
a N(i $
O co v
U
W j
r
W
f.
ul 14
o
Wc
tn i J m
L H V u]
C5
CL.
/ • ?a 0 J D
• ?Q 0? ce
S. • y m V
• G y
_ O v <o. m
4
•Q 6.i <
0 r
v
3 ? m R
a? M E c
o m '-
v c > o
(n o E R
G C CL V
z > m?Ez
> ?Za10
m c z
(? .. C C
O a C
E0
0
V O y Z
? A C
0 Y
V
C 0

11

N
cr
w Z?
z
0
o C, U4
J=
2 z?
0U wjE 2
z
°°?o o
?F
OOm ?wQ
?'kQ`"QOm
Ix 2
QUZp300
V1--FUU
ooz <6uw
?ir 0O-Q?
i--aF'=a
ZmOwO
N,J??..
W=OZO
?-V1UQZ
w a
z m
ti p
CD
z Li
LA. 0
JO ?F': `
tax d OZ
Z? Q ?J
W Z_ U X
(D J Z z w
-IC <Z?IX
W
I- O
QZNU) N
h-Qncr. Q
ZZakU)L) 1
10 £ N
o
? H
irw0 aV 1$
C
a?
24.)
CL

?o z
''•<o
,..
OF
N T Qw(A
-j L*4
Qm : ..• ..7.•. •' ..• Win ik
w

ZN
'
WZ
ti':. w
-
Z?
J m d?
: L 1n
C N Q
?
~
y O: O
?`
Zi
111 2
Q O J

o J
U ~
Z

kZp
3 w
w
CL

o
U

Z
Q
0
z
r
3 N
z
Z
O
1
m
N
rn
OJ
1=
N I-
J W
Q?
N 0
?Z
N o
N o
0
m
o.
CL
44
a
m
m
a
OOG
V
co
m
4
C
m a
E5
?o
o`
w
a av
u m o
` 0 a z
Cc C
c
0 O
? V
O ?
V«N3
H ? C
? Y
V
IA
W
i

PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
EROSION CONTROL
W7ERIAL (OPTIONAL)
FV*SNED GRADE

DUSTING CHANNEL BOTTOM
LNE STAKE DRNEM
THROUGH RPRAP

City of Charlotte Storm Water Services
Marsh Road
Storm Drainage Improvements
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

X tAw
:' jw
1G. ow.)
OF B?W
. OF RPRAP
BURY A MMN14A1
or Tr (7YP.)
18 (MIN.) (TYP.)
PLANT SPACING BASED ON
TYPE Or VEGETATION
AND SITE CONpnMM.
SECTION A-A
LAW
LAWGIBB GROUP MEMBER
Prepared: A N K s 113101
Checked: MAT- S/+4/01
RIPRAP JOINT
PLANTING
30100-0-0369 figure 7

N
z
Q
J
o a
o
w ?
c?
mho
,goo
U
?? QN
z
V~ ZF
coz<
za.p?
Z L- W
N N
W JJ to
wQ90
PEnL)<<
ao
rn
z ii
o
M -
Y H m ?
moll Q
a?i•° yG
wY ?z
I CL w ~ o
4
N
? o
? a
to
a Z
c
vNi Q
J
1`-
tA
2
O '
r£4
r?
V
2
N
w
m
H
Z

G.

T
O
C
V
co
m_
V

<
? .
..3
.
• z
m

•• • m

J w
c
E

Z
z -
? o
o 0
m
v
L
F Z E
V -
m
W N .
+
m z
z
= W W OV
C =m?c
o
p
Ro ? 00 o
o; E
< C. .
z
d &E S
d v0N°
N V c
c Y

V
Z
a
J
o 0-
0
U
W Z Z
MEZ
?DO
U
way
ca.?W?F
zwog
r- aFLL.
z mDW
J r N
LLJ -j (f)
W<Zo
2 O Z
F-tnUQ
a bid
C?
',' N 2 Z
0
in
2 2
r•
W
2
Hz
_<
mo
M
0
Y
S
M Y
U
a?
a. c.)
0
W
Z
0
N
Q
N'
Z
m
2
0
Z?
4
0
.
m w
C
41
O
to
a n. v
_
W v `: 0 W Z
5
09-1
U)
i L? ye
a p ? ? O
E
v
k E
C??N
N c
0 Y

i

• o
r
ZLL
°o -Z,- N Fa-
z Y v0 =! W
aJ. a Q G
s
O ~ d NG
W ? W U I.
cr W O. y Q Q ?,
m?< a v W N `"
N o
OOV p? o
k <Z
aZO °
U < o
I
OOZQ w
ZaOV
t- 4' < ° ui
ZmD
0: CL W t a NN y?
WJ(n? O!m? C Z <
WQZO FF W Y d ZZ O Z
<N ?j m ZU :?
yy?? ZZ o
W O W m ZO N
4
Ir Z _ z a
m
W?<? m co
?W < F Z ?ZN 'y_' w
y
2m t < Z C,
N m X W ?L
o w o Z O
W O,V Q
• • ?' m
'? t= 3
•` cn
W 40
E c
j L o
z 1001 w Z m o
O Oa
J W sZ o o to
W i+-C b. i< ?< r-10O0
zz CL (L
C .V
V Q N
C
W

W
Z
Q
J
Wa a
W
O: U
t7
in Z
oo°?
U
QV?
?
Z
Z
Z v
a
O U
F? W
OW
ZMMW
IL
W Z
<
m
1?
W JNlA
azo ?
?W J
W
f5xoz
?p z
z

c in x
X
?
s
V
Z
Z
O N
W
Z?
Fm
N
51°
x
4W
O
0
c?

o -
M
_
f
10
Y

a Y
a?
J a. C)
O!s

W
ty
z
O
Y
0- 11
<
Q
-c
W

N Z Vl

m

n

N0 z
-C In z -C

0
.t ' ?
?'
• ? ? - -
? .fi
.
. ,
n

.. ?
y
J
Nt
1- N
y 2

N

. Z .

R
o 5
Q
r
m Cc
> O
O
w
av
m?E.C
41 a0
am c
%. -
us 1! c
p 3 ?
r: SO
V O ? ?
W ? C
Y
t
!0
i
FLOW
C(
DIM ?Arl AI ITr Al I MM^rr-PTI r%l1
. BANK SLOPE
1.5-2H:1 V
4 tai

J BOTTOM
?-- LENGTH OF OUTFALL PROTECTION ??
' DETAIL NO. 11
STM Prepared/Date:
OUTFALL PROTECTION DETAIL WAM Checked/Date:
NTS Spa
City of Charlotte
Storm Water Services
Marsh Road Storm Drainage Improvements
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
TOP OF BANK
LAW
LAWGIBB GROUP MEMBER
OUTFALL PROTECTION DETAILS
Project 30100-0-0369
Figure 12
CHANNEL BOTTOM TRANSITION AT 6:1 TOP OF BANK
LENGTH OF PROTECTION "L" VARIES
i
SECTION A-A
w EASTING FENCE LINE
Z
2
I
U
Y 18' CLASS I
W
z RIP RAP E)aST. TOP
OF BARN(
W
FILTER F
0 VARIES 1.5-2
1cuss 1 31 6'BASE
RIPRAP ® ?®
i -0 lZ'
CLAS
' RAP
DETAIL NO.13
SELWYN FARMS TRIBUTARY
• OUTFALL DETAIL
NIS
662
STREAM BOTTOM
660
BACKFlLLBACWI11KF?
SELECT ILL
we 658 - LAYER 3
-r-- LAYER 2
656
+- LAYER 1
?+-3'?3'-?{
SECTION B-B

arar+row?aq
Prepared/Date:
WAM Checked/Date:
City of Charlotte
Storm Water Services LAW OUTFALL PROTECTION DETAILS
Marsh Road Storm Drainage Improvements
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina LAWGIBB GROUP MEMBER
Project 30100-369 Figure 13
°
Off' It
a d V) w
o a o J S x
O
Z N E, z o?
O z
?a n ?z wa, m
7 w
cz
o
00
ui o z> Q LL W?j W
m Cl o l v,Ni Q -.!4Aw Q
N? \ N O NWN z-j 'Z=Z z -j J? O 0 & .? IQr > as Q: 0,
0 r?
Q w W Q O O
ZW Q ? EEO i cc z
zz V Q a Q a zLu Jw ? ° ? o
<4
0- Cl) V)
a0 0 ° Q mW
W ^ I O
Z Q W w F a 1/
() Z M Q ccz Q w z
Z
W v Z Qcc I am
Fx La LL.
wm 3 p z0 1
zo < ra ?!
zz
3Q M ® N ° O O
Q o U a
w ww o W O O
J
m? N xN 0 J rn
OQ Z rm m ? r o?
z z
wZ W OO o
w o w o F- LLI
w o 0 ° ° Q. w
wm V) V,Z Q U r
F-0 Fw Z 0 F U) O
zQ w 33 OJ 0 ¢ n
Jr o P O Y
Or 0: 0
F3._( aQ N z <
Q in O~ O ?` c < w Q
g o w F- D A
?a m Q25 < U)
Q p0 ~2 0 M
QO O Fp ? 0 ? ? •T •a y
W..r ZO 'Q co
0 o
w co W? z
U
3-
vi w ° ?. a a
V) W, = Q
OW Q JM i0 c W ¢ Q U m
=Q 0 ma a W 2 W W J U
W Q
r3 LL_ J2 m0 z N a z a
oa r wr oa >- O
Z o Q Q
V)0 o rz-= a0 z ? o = O
F r 0 O a
LLJ Qp LL z3 11Y ns v r x w ° LL k,
w Wa U D
3? 3 OW Hv LO ? I F- FW-
Q 0 v1 wQ i r x O z O r
Z? 0 >?) J O x O 2 O
0 3 J WjO O?o Z a Z d Q
V
UQ r m.w oo m
W O m ° Q ' I U
mU } o ?, a Q Q
O Q Q d O
? z z -i ° o o a I }
N ri x ' I
LLA
w
r ° o
Z o° v r" n iCh
..__..... ,..... .,.e.i..,, a.............r-,..N....,w1 ?nnl nnn?cannl7ui ?nwunvln tJ7 M1bIM'\CI'17f`f1111?:?1
i ?
i` DATATORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Ddneatlon Martin
AR
Project/Site: LS u-S lre,r Ro
Appilcant/Owrter: Gt+ar oti' S 6 Ser vet
' Investigator: " to ?taF?,erlan A?ew. YACA.aosfar,
Do Normal ?rournstartcee Exist on the slle? ® No
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
IsVie area a potential Problem Area? Yes
(if needed, explain on reverse.) .
'VEGETATION

Dale: t t S /01 -
County: -mec k kn 'urN
State: _ 14 C.
=r%ID: Plot 0: -D
Dominant Plant Se es Sfr`at Indi Dominant Plant Species Strut IndicaW
1 FeSh?& arui+din?ew ?_ FAC- !L
Z pol!jAenum avfcliLm h) F AC.- to
s?Meder 1-,e .X V t1.
41 {.r,,,uS6%Nn SMen-se S?S FAC 12
8-' Corms T. FAW 13,
d Acct rArvrn T .. AC 14
T FAC+ t?
L Quercus i.pLeAo_ s_- T FAG+)- te.
.Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC '' I y
(ex?ng FAC4,
`l?emartcs: rcSt?n??'' /urlm, I.A use Vwj AVerejn-Vw Vt5tF.kve corninvnj?
HYDROLOGY
r

Recorded Data (DesaftIn Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge
Aerial PhotoVWW
Ollfiir
No Recorded Data Available
Field ObservetiorM
Depth of surface Water.
Depth to Free Water In Pik
Depth to saturated Soil
> 12 (Int.)
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
- Irxx?dated
Sshxsted In Upper 12 Incites
Water Marks
DrIRlSrtes
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more regt kvM:
Oxidized Root Charnels in Upper 12-
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Ted
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks: ne evidinct

..•t S

'dS - -
SOILS

Vi
r Map Unit Marne
(Series and Phase): C th- Cecil yrLh
14nJ Cornel eX Drainage Clues: ?xil -draine?

Taxonomy (Subgroup): Tkao?-miliC Field Observations
lervrie T9FEC Confirm Mapped Type? Yee No
Profile Descriodm:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle colors mottle Texture. Concredonl%
finches) Horizon- . IMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moiety : Abundance/Conhad S uctur+e. elm
04 A 7s YR - - P-ndy 414 - la?r,
4--1 B 2.S YR 41. s_ YS/?- ?,??? asx C-'&!s
>7 B 2s 5/2 -to YR Q& .Zs% clan lowrh
Hydric Soll Indicators:
- Histosol _ ConcreUots
_ Histk Epipedon _ High Orgaric Content in Suria ce Layer SandySols
_ Sut6dlo Odor _ Orgark Streaking In Sandy Solve
_ Aquk Moisture Regime _ t.isted on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils Ust
_ Gleyed.or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain In Remarks)
RenwicL - N. r Pe . sei P•nestn
11 1
- Se1?S iwwG bteri ?iStvrieo ??? r+o? i Fi td . 6? f ?tA ?iLI deve f ineJ
ern vS bA raex- b?i5 CGS I- r NC' S.i? Svrve&3 C1980?_
WETLAND DETERMINATION
HydrophyUc Vegetation Present? Yes (Girds) (Gib)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedartd? Yes
Remarks: -.14^f rIn p-ir? I VP I rs „, „I-
AwravW by
I'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
E-
1-
NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Pwojxc Nam: CAMS o.4 R.,1 Rim Buie CA"A . Couotr. rn.elCh"6rw Erdwwr; Bu AN K
DWQ Project N?bw. NA Nearest Named Scam It a Lotode: 2e V iol of MOM= 73i?•
Croak
Dux l/t!•/01 USCiSQUADLF.r1.st E.SF(MBS? Longitadx tr'dt' M• u
*PLEASE NOTE:,Y do .or albndownerepudlmal. k• w 0?0Ox S1}e SA-1
Abq yln• x6ale hyar I?ir. awn-n.de Atei, filar are yditrjbrma, b twt
Alm +1 Vpgf_ kue ? mow4f&e enshm or, rteJman ha wan.wo6 d" and owe • ao•d{fbda wwd S? ""?^ O R,
PrlmaryField Tndlc9tota''0ck*or:h l.rltr.u j ? "'a?? i'?
L G"Mornholmv . Absent Wick Moderate
is 7l?ere A Riffle Pool eon-ncef O 1 Z Str?OD[ i???
Z) IF 7be USDA Texture b SoeambW. ` .
Dif -rent From' Suawndine Teeaief -- 0 eh . - - - . 1
b 7bap An Active (Or Reim)
9) b A Coatinuons Bed.A Bank Present? 0 I ® 3
]O) b A Order Or Greater Channel (As lndicued
Oa Tooo Mao AndVr h Fie( Reseett re1ES' end)
PMIMARYGEOMORPIIOLOGYINDICATOR POMnLA-
TI. H?irolosr Absent Week Moderate ca,,,..
]) b That A Groundwater
owM sd arae Present? 1 ¦r.?.? r" l/f
BUMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POIMSa_L-
3) DO" TOPOV Vhy ]udicare A
WWI la" .
SECONDARY GEOMORPBOLOGYINDICATORPOINTS.• is -•a?` ;nom " ?T? 163
.n1116d n Absent week, ftrumn
Moderate "s
1) b This Yeses (or Latta) Leafhmr
4)'b Water h Channel And >48 mint. Sine 3 1 LS .
i wet raown Rain? f•NME? e'rlvw h&gud JkN Abp.n ge ?ar. Sam Awd n Arbr+l - NA Pdn &* 2* (wig .
s) b Them water In Channel Dw* Dry 0 3 1 L!
Condht =-& 6 OyAne SM401M - uI
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY IjVDIC4TOR
4) Are WVd W Plants h Soeambedf SAO M ODL Month FACW . Moody PAC Df
nary FACQ Me* iRL
(0 Ms: /'TearfAbuennr gAnPra.e A Sn.a.ala/ ? n s -
Ar Nand (box See nu Sup nvr ±xe WPn goo 0
SECONDA)tYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.-(-
TOTAL POINTS ip g,, ry + Seeorrdars.a - 1_lV CN 0aft rhon Or B.gaal T• ff Psh* file sd„aoo h At r_.,,, e_.._a..?
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POIMM i s
Secondary Fleld Tndie9torS4.-Xk rev m,,k p ." W..
S 1? --
INTERMITTENT CTUNMM
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID NA APPLICANT NAME t:??r1nH-a SForrnk)-?tr Ser;erc S DATE 1 /1S?0 1 )a-';
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (:e., culvert, relocation, doe.) c olveA- mgl,,ctme4 w!'^'^?' 1
WATERBODYA VER BASIN ! tll1e A- J! : Creek E-A. h?w6 R;yer B.siw COUNTY/QTY m
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS to 0' r.,i r, e'?i I, e u re
P SP NP Observation Comments orDescrintiae'
Aneea .
Ben*k Maao bvatebn het
Ampldbi.n Pmaet/Btaft
Algae AnM Fmgw (waw quHty fmcd*
Wildlife Channel use ft.e. tracks, %am 4wk e>dm)
FWaally hotecad Spvdcs xwootinee) -
RiNe/Pod saoelme
stable saeambaib t
sin S?rtann b?n?CS 3 r }?t
C hawd sobsmft
Vvvel, cobbk melt, eown samQ
Riparian tauM Present (SP./>-V* elm=)
X Unda cat Rw*whuaeam Habitat Suacum
hne.S We.Svin sb^n%( PO1\ St
nvw to Chanad
Walan& Adjacatt TNCootig. Wuh Cbimd (Discaooatte)
Aen imcat PooldSaouated Botloa
(Joao dra Sept.)
_ NA
SapdGm=dwvuei Discharge (Jane thm stn . ^ NA
.
Adj.acw lloodploin Pspeatt
Wnd Material or Dt ftJ.Aa i
- lte-vt5 ,
Hy&vpbydc vesetwim idadjaoeat to dnmel - 81e?ek W i "e W ukrtX SPP.
Important To Domestk Water Snppii,'? Y
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y /g) Approx. Drainage Arse; < t. 40 &P
Determination:
? Perennial Channel (aw) ? Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR bitiar___
? Intermittent Channel V=4 ? Unimportant Channel: 1F
® Ephemeral Ommd (800 (attach map iraatift location of importanNmnmpottaot cbmu el)
? Ditch Through Upland (said)
Evaluator's Signature:
• (if other than CO.L poject Managed
M;o

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form '
Project Natnt~ cutas't,n.nP.J ltivtrGarin: C +6.1 , Covo. PA.cklan)Kn% Ewletear: d aAft S A
DWQ Project Numbs: NA Nearest Named Sttum AtClILwr. ladwde ns• '.v 0 Spawc e.!
Dm 1,/tS/off USGSQUAD:GI?IrN. tKt Cnu) Longitude w•11':h?tJ Iaa6otJDiroc6oaK SA-2
•PLEA$E NQTEr I/toi?tor.wd /wrdotnte a?nar dbrW Juan tr. aiaawadr ?,1Aea rsr ydH?Ji?w b..r.ans.} C.k ..t '?N ? .
. Ata,•((b dk ktr praJadoaalJrtijawear ?tA..whuroq Jb. Jean 6 a ataaanode areA.al sot. wo?Jkl.eAw.r,e?.ra?•-fir .inu.?e??!•e??K. '
gstaaaAorYawisau?afoC esk r+nC?+Cnfem?
Primary Field Indicators: Karatwtlww*wA rnrrl
I. Geomo ' hol Absmd W era*
l) la 7Trcrt A R,? -DMt cry +..?? Q 1 4 3 •
2)1s The USDA Teaaae In Streambed
Il is The r't+inn l Sinum? 0 t11 2 3
S) Is 71im Aa Active (Or Rene)
1ln &lsin FrewAd - 0 m 2 3
n ii Qannel Braidedt ?? 1 2 3
7) W R : Ae_sena 0 1 X21 3
n--. o.......1 Im It
9) L A Condnum Bed do Bank hestmt7 0- 1
10) L A Orda Or Greater Channel (As LtdicsW .
on Tom Mao Agg In Field) Pre-madra>3
PRIMARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINMICATOR POINTS-,-I_
11.Hrdrolar Absent we*
1) la Than A Grotrodwnsr
]Flow/ lwhmn Press d 0
PRIMARYHwitoLoGYINDICAwitPom :J_
® 3 -S ut•ttrri.+- S?I.t a
.? a.wns?,?„?
• ae 1. e+?r• ,
t•n? Jencc t
&rak sum
2 3
Secondary Field Indicators: taato-m-*.w.r+r1 .
1) t •1 Km a Head On Present In CMnnetr _ -- _ - IUD .? t r.- _
11 h T m a Or*& ConZ Point In Ch nd? _ 0 t? 1 is
3) Dow TgvVaphy lydicase A
SECONDARY.GEOMORPIIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: t _s
IT. Hvdr•olon AbK%t Wok Moderate Strove
1) b This Year's (or L ws) LsaBitlar . _ _
4) h Wear la Caamd And >48 Ha. Sins 0 3 I LS
hN01E wrri'A tnx ++..A)A I9 Aborr gln Tarr S?e• dad IS arbn?I
JayKnown lain? NA
3) L Thee ware b Cbimd Duriy Dry 0 3 1 13
NA
jWROLOGYINDICATOR POINIS:_jA-
11) Are Wed and Hwa in Sueambedt SAV Mor@y Oit4L Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Moody FACQ Moab i!!I.
poor *f7 dJW .., Of.mm.tara...tt+t 2 1 73 3 0 0
..__
SECONDARY,910LOGYINDICATIOR POINTS: 3 -s
TOTAL POI1M1Primon + S«onaon)=.1'-f fGr*ow nwr•or Evnd re j' Pais nor Stne+w h Apt Lrmr I Mmdm o

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION APPLICANTNAME t1-AAt SForml)-cr Se'ry%CcS DATE •1ltSlot SA-
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) • w1wr1- rc-P?.cemen%- '
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN ?.fFFlc Nopt CrscK 6b. /CaiA?da Rt?er B.srr• COUNTY/CITY M k_I ?n
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS SI ? e • l= ? .mj? o/r 24- ? .yrs
` p Sp NP Observed= Comments or Descritf
FabOMMshADusMem how
Bwtbic Macao bvrrnbow.
Ampl!Vmw F1wwtBteediq S•-?•n andtPf
' Algae AudAOr I?agm (vvakr 9?h' ) '
w,l&h aamd tin ?. aacb hcm soma) res;lmkA1 ?1? w nee w.s
Fc&%aAy Piotccted SPcdm (D wDude.e) '
• Riftlc/Pod Saocarae -
Stable suemb.oly
(w wd Sobsaale
S avet, cobble md? coum sand) S ? rs vt set s sent cvC enet
O? St``r"'e"Wv ate WAes -ALA 17 ti+anes
RipwMOumpyftc-0(SPlhs0%dow) eon a ?.?in G an
Undwcut Bum Habitat Sooco me
-Flow IoCMmd a4? otn4- A-Ce"Ir. cL-,ne c
wd bD* Adjw= TbM( )ndg. With Ch=W (Diaco.ndi e) ' ae}e• lee.
PooldSaduaw BOOM
(Jane dam 3CF4
NA

' Sceps Qv=dwaw DbdtaW (Jum ft o Sept.) .
NA
X Ad acw Ploodp)am P?eseat
wnaMaeaial.arDnftlioet ?wtS S??ckS arta?
Hy&opbyde Vegemem inWfiw ttt w cbmad

1

Important To Domestic Water Sn Y/ A r?,ec1s . D?J Q PeTieh^ i'+?`, d c?` n'o n
PP4? 6D*
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Solk Map? Y /© Approx. Drainage Ara: oC '
Determination:
? Perennial Channel (tom) ® Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initiati_
® Intermittent Channel (!*0 em ? Unimportant ammel• LF
? Ephemeral Channel (wjd) (Strad, map indicating locaaoo ,of ' unVeninVatm chsaw )
? Ditch Through Upland (pfd)
Evaluator's Signature:'
?G+r Gtar.!/
(if other than C.O.E Prolea Mme)

NCDWO Stream Classification Form
PcoicaName:1A rA Rd. RivaB.sio 4ac ,wb.. COUByr "1-(1eA r9 Evaluator: SLL
' DWQ Ptoject Numbs: NA Neared Named Stream; Ci *L f;- I,?tnde: Sigouiae; j?
rte
Dow -2/8/01 USGS QUAD: ? • S ?Q - 3
' *PLEASE NOTE: #em&,mr ere iasdonaa am moo to farm is, mm4u it ekk am sur.JdYJsp. m a.r n amp.%
Abe, Vim A* bm pojexdos.l fi*oweat of at musmor, to Jiarm 6, wo.•w.ar &vk and nw s wodyW w.nntl womma mAit
rarity rpnw ei.om a.r be asdde
Primary held Indicators: (GFCkOM .abrrJWUW)
1 Geomomhology AbaeW w M
- Oe?l'i S d u r? +P td i n+ I I Is There A Riffle-Pool Seaumm? 0 1 - rub r
Crtonn its . 2) L The USDA Texture In •Std, NO
back y.rds c(++e-5•)
briC?S i I?S?ftnt:irM? -;ncPS c nn
41 Is The Chmmi 3
Ic..vtS ,??. J S) Is There An Actin (Or Relic)
Is The Channel Braided? 2 3
i vu u 1n t?wn ?n S ' 71 Arc mat Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 3 -swn
S?rtAl'+'1 Ow11kS
,tee P1 i n c f S t? \ 9).b A Continuous Bed A Bank Pn mm? 0 1 3
Ol, wn r`t l 6>.s d J 10) L A Order or Oawa Chmnel (As Indicamd
On TODD ManAnd/Or In Fieldl PteaeM? Ykiml --
- P1 t ust ?rcrr Js ei, PRIMARY GEOAVRPROLOGYIADICA71ORPOINTS: 9
'P a us ?rofn S?-? Ij, vdroloor Absent went Modu*ft Strong
1) h. Thee A Omimdwamr
HormijahatnePneseot? 0 n 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA- OOR POINTS:

V.-

Secondary Field Indicators: ra,t• oarA. *. pw z1..) _
3) Doe
- _ ----- SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY
4) L Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 GJ 1 13 l r..ls
Mir Sem Awd.S Bel.r?l 5.n
i Ag Xw.na .in? mpm M och twg0d a.9 Abovr - a^
S) is Thee Water In Channel Dw* Dry 0 3 1 13 N?
Cmdidoos Or In Growing ScwQ ?
SECONDARYHYDROL0GYINDICATORPOIN7S. µ•5
8) Ate wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Moody 08L Monty FACW Moody FAC MwWACU Maly UPL
(OM1 -f7addA6uwaOJAOPI.rri.&POW" 2 1 .75 S 0
-A. Notd Above Ab
SECONDARY BIOLOGYAVDICATOR POINTS: •
TOTAL POINTS (Pr*m" + secomka)--L 2 if Grwter Thous Or Egrar To L Poink "m &VOM It At r of /wYerssittnse)
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.---k-
IL Hvdroloas Absed Weak Moderate Stroh[
1) is m.& Years (or i w,s) LeaBitmr ,.

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
. EVALUATION FORM

ACTION ID NA APPLICANT NAME CS W S marsh R.-? DATE A/ 8/o l sA-3
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) s1-r,?a.+ban ?C s ??.b; i zo.?-; erg
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN L-Mc NoPe Creek tA. ? Cg?4w?ea COUNTY/CITY mr ek?enbut?a
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS sunny . SDI G D' F no tarn h''J?i +S 6.. is
P 'SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/ShellfisdK ruataceans Presort 1
' b u rro w
? Benthic Macro Invertebrates
? Amphibians Present/Breeding

,C Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) '
In i O .-VeA 00

-? -Wildlifo Channel Use (i e. tracks, fens, shells, Odws)
- - Federally Protected Species (Discontinue) tJA
Riffle/Pool Sbuct a d r r? c? tS wa?tr 1
Stable Sovambenks

_ - C bannel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand)
b r Sc`t5 con cre.,"L A eO r s o??so
Riparian Canopy Present (SP--4>50% closure)
Undercut Bankslinsneam Habitat Structure

,C Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacew ToJContig. With Channel (Discontinw) HA

- Persistent PooWSatunted Bottom
pnne duu Sept)

A
A IA
secpo&oundwater Discharge (June thru sept.) NA
- - Adjacent Roodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift lines
v/ Hydrophylic Vegetation inladjacent to duumd
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /®
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y /(fD
Determination:
? Perennial Channel (stop)
® Intermittent Channel (proceed)
? Ephemeral Channel (no id)
? Ditch Through Upland (no id)

1

Approx. Drainage Area: -c.
? Important Channel: LF
® Unimportant Channel: I Loo LF
PROJECT MGR Initials I
(anach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
_v
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project Manager)

n

57-4
:1,,CDAV0 Stream Classification//?tForm
f f /, I
ProKa Name: A&,C n C pi.BasisW aW114 County: /yt ??//tl-kltb%L'Q Evaluator.
I'
Dst'Q Projca Number: Nearest Named Stream:C•9'PC Latitude: 3Se 1 )D 3S
?
?S p
Date: I L 141 US 6S QUAD:(LI L( t ? w O
. p LocatiowDiretxions: G? t e r bJow 9&4 ;rd d GrA.ys?al? e
V m yl ! l to ' PLEASE )VOTE: If ewiumar and landowner agree Thal the fearrue is o /non-nmde r6rc 1, LAen Inc of dds fwm is apt
necroswy.. ALm. if in the bat profesrimmi judgo 1 a f fhe ndamor, Ae fmare is • nan4nade ditch and no a PwAfiied
nainrai irrrrn-olds raring alaesm shoriW hat k ase r
Primary Field Indicators: lclrcko.Nosier PaLm)
?GSI ?" ?IS _ _ n Geomorohologv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
n 2 3
- Pr &rk
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strcambed
S) IS Tserc An Active (Or Relic)
Flood lain 9 0
l_ 6 I The Channel Braided')
?QJ7" )s ) n 7 Are Recenl Alluvial Dc sits rese 2
X) Is Them Bankfull Be dt -
7) Is A Continuous Bed bt Bank Present? 0 I
v` •NO IfBd d- -k owsd ' 'Ichl m
111) Is A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indica,ted
On Topo Man AndVr In Field) Prr eAt? Yes-3 N
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: _L
St/U?LI 11 Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strove
1) Is Tlwrc A Groundwater
001 ?JFlott/Dtsclnarec Present r 0 (? 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:

1
3r car fie.

PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POI-M. _
Secondarv Field Indicators: tcvobo_s_bw Psr Lrne) _
1 Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
3) Does Topography indicate A
Natural Drainaxe Way') 0 ) 1.5
SECONDARYGEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATORPOINTS: t • 0
Il Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter /.i
x) Are.Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV mostly un?, mostly ewa.n mwu7 rna. mway rna.v -.1-
0 *.,Vl EAb(ow St.Il a Abranc.r)fAllPbroilnSwa bsd 1 .75 .S 0 0
reienr' .
Ax 1'd.di Thir ' UN -SMV
.1ECOIVDARYBIOLOGYINDIC-ITOR POINTS- L' S
T /1T r nn 1hrTn , . , . I I I 7rir rr_,.... T{...r r]. F-1 T. 1e Pr.rrrs,Tre&- Is Alf Lead
1 1.5
a) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Sins 0 (23 >
Last naKw Rain? tworE. it h nAww n a9 bow A-ble lb-ii r d 03 A
U 5 ! LS
5) Is T e e Water In Channel During Dry
Conditions Or In Grwi season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel Or In Headcutl? Yet 1. No?O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYMICA TORPOINTS: ?LS
S-4- q
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
kCTION ID APPLICANT NAME Csw /"?? rS? Cdr
DATE Aw., r7 G ; a4lb/
'ROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocatiion, etc.) 61,1weI L 54reaxjl ank rTQ?; f;z ,?1
NATERBODY/RIVER BASIN ?,;lt Aak COUNTY/CITY 14e-tk1eAb.y' 64rle>
2ECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS ?,. „•,? ?y ?ta !? 'n 'A ?4,r?
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
X Fish/Shellfish/Crustaccans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding v e T (J e 0.1< i a AL d a l
Srr? QWt4 A de --S
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces: shells, others) ra GGOO4 11" n45-
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)

C Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand)
QTP S o G,Ve r L ' ??
I . 1Mb >? s• l E 7; s?
x Riparian Canopy Present (SP=h50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instrcam Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
X Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig.'With Channel (Discontinuc)
Persistent Pools/Saturatcd Bottom
(June thru ScpL)
d?A Od
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.) Q,4e r ;n ND I L G-+ /a" . S' ,
Adjacent Floodplain Present
X Wrack Material or Drift Lines
,x Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel ?? j_ S r? u • U f? ow
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y &
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) [] Imponant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
® Intermittent Channel (proceed) ® Unimportant Channel: oZ LF
E] Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature: -?? ? =: -?
(if other than C.O.E. project anager)

SA-s

E

fl.

11

NCDWO Stream Classification Form /
Proxcl Same: Ac rs'? l River Basis CAr, w ; A county: VeA ?[?nt7a// Evaluator. I J L P
0WQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stmam:L• 1i6 Latitude: 3S lU 35' J Signanrre:Gf. /`Qi1 4?
D:nc: 1,16, USGS QUAD: CV//-#t Longitude- q S) 27
Qouti
Lncation/Diractions: Arlir'm 9C4p.,d 4-/
' P L EAS E NOTE: Ifaahlmw and landowner agree tho the fearste it • rl.al.?n.ode ditch, then we of thisfmos b not
G f i r Q 4, neceaarv..4bo. if in the bat profasionol jadgonenr of the ewlualor, the fewure Is a mwkmadt itch and no a wwdlfied
l/J Molnrat 7rKwn-ehis raing J0000" sh"Id *a be nlftf*
o ,01 U e Primary Field Indicators: tcm*oa.H_bwpol Lln.)
2) Is The USDA Texture in
5) Is *nwn An Active (Or Relic)
v) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? U 1 2 )
•Ntr dS nt• o.-d ' Tchl nd
111) Is A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Mao AndVr In Field) Present? ' Yer-3 N C )
a-3 k) ' PRIMARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDIC4TORPOIN7'3:
Il Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Stron¢
1) Is'nwm A Groundwater
,_- Florv/Discharec Present" 0 1 A 3
PRIMARYIf YDROLOGYINDIC4TORPOINTS: 2
I I. Biology A
1 is mere A trraae Montrot rmnt to wamlci, .-?
3) Does Topography Indhcate A
Nalurdl Drainage Way'? 0 r 1 1.5
SEC'ONDARYGEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATORPOINTS: e S
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Lasts) Leaflitter /tit
i Ytf'1rt
6) Are Iron Oxidizing BacteriaTun-1-t Presen[9 1.5
t4j 7) Is Filamentous Aigle Present? ?dS5_ 1.5
W 8) Are Wetland Plants In Strcambed? SAY Mostly 0111, Mowry V Moray FAC Mostly FACU Mossy UrL
C-a 11 t•.+nre(fToWAbe O fAU Plow In Saamah.d Z 1 .75.5 0 0
tt ?Vl? A C'r.dAhors Up Thie Sao UNLESS SA VPr.tat*)
iti(? G!6 STA
.VEC'ONDARYBIOLOGY INDIC4TORPOINTS: ?' as
.-
PRIMARY BIOLOGY 11VDIC4TOR POINTS:__?___
Secondary Field Indicators: tCnd. One Nw.ha Pa 4ny
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hm Since 0 .3 U 1.5
L•1 1 Known Rairil f it h ndiml.d n f9 6ore r 1 85 Below-1
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In rowin Season 9
() Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcutl? Yv No-O
.SEC(lNDARYHYDROLOGYINDIC4TORPOINTS: L'S

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL nq--5
EVALUATION FORM
APPLICANT NAME Cs(.Js Artt1 CIP) .---
../DATE '44, r?
'ROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert , relocation, etc.) G??ve? S'}ream?OCl+?< Sal,,/;z?oy1 _
JVATERBODY/RIVER BASIN_ C&?Gw ba
2ECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS ?rsytnyl ?W7 66 ra 'A ?ar
COUNTY/CITY 14dJ kiL fy 16f
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
X Benthic Macro Invertebrates a
Amphibians PrcsentBrceding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
X Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Strcambanks `; , f? Qi1 ks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand)
Riparian Canopy Present (SP=h50% closure)
X Undcrcut Banks/Insvcam Habitat Structure f-?
x Flow In Channel
e 1'QTQ t ?o w
'D
?r Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Sept.)
Sceps/Groundwatcr Discharge (June thru Sept.)

r X Adjacent Floodplain Present -
z;- I I - Wrack Material or Drift Lines
-
- -
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
?r ?X J A-44 e o r
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y/&
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) ® important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) [] Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of imponant/unimpottant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no id)
r

u

C
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project M ger)

1

C

r.
i
f'.

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form I
/ J L P
ProKo Manx: A&rC ? GIP River Basin 66-+C-IJ County: A-40 1i-o Evaluator. 44kl
DWO Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:l.• kept Latitude: 3S 10 35 / Signattve?? -->-
Mae:?? 'G'01 USGSQUAD:66rjeC-414 Longitude: i(DSl 27
Location/Directions: Hoil, S G'"u n.,foyl
*PLEASE NOTE: If ewWmor and landowner agree the Mc feature is ¦ nwn-Node'alitch, then we of "jam it not
neccoaq.. Alm, ijin the be=t professional jadgenent of the evalnaor, the fearare h a ma* n.ode tack and mat a modijted
natural snearr-4his rating spaen shor/d ma be used'
o Primary Field Indicators: tc)rdaona N.wbsrvarLh.)
?Y??IY j -4?
I Geomorpholory Absent Weak Moderate Strong
._ - _ 1 2 3
?, (1 G 1 2) Is The USDA Textture In Sum
;6641 aft(((???III Different From SurroundingT
C 3) Are Natural Levees Present?
{? G?S 4) Is T Channel Sinuous?
u r' S) Is There M Active (Or Relic)
/? ?n4h Floodolain Present?
V) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 V a
•MO d L onk ,,md ' 'rcbl d no
lo) Is A 2 Order Or Greats Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Mao A Zcr In Fieldl P ? ' Yes-3 No?l
: S
PRIMARYGEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATORPOINTS,
7,015-J -'
Pwa??
9 (_o0?
11 Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is Tlerc A Groundwater
Floe/Discharge Present) t1 1
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (CovhOna N-ba.PvL w)
3) Does Topography Indicate A__
Natural Drainage Was') 0 I 1.5
.SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATORPOINTS: La
3 Are Wrack Lines Present?
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 1 11
Last Known RainV •Nt • irch nd)catad ns9 bow ' r r
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 1 1.5
J Oo Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) A. Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In HeadcuU? Yes 1.5 No-O
f01>?
) .411111DARY H YDROLOGY INDIC4 TOR PORM-
ge a„,` i
®ver
K1G???<
N 8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly vnL mosey rna.w mwuy nswut rnw -u. w..
l•NOTE•(fTao)Absoam,QfAll Plows InSoaanbed Z 1 .75 .S 0 0
As Nr.ad bow Ski This Sr ON S SAYPrvenr• . ..
.SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: D
Trl T A ! Pl111VT Q r n : _ ?.. ce ..d.., „1= ?? (/( Greater Than Or Eonal To 19 Poinu'The Stream Is At Least
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11 Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leatlitter /.2
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
SA- ?
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME C' (U) S 24rf DATE v r? G awl
'ROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) CulvG? ` ' Sri1?uMk Sr<Q ??'-?+'GI'1
NATERBODY/RIVER BASIN 6&?a jba COUNTY/CITY 1qtcVe4or4 I6l ar? L
tECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS S,YIKu V ??° fGi/? :n aT4 y? ours-
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
x Fish/Shellfish/Crustaccans Present
X Benthic Macro Invcnebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)

L` Riffle/Pool Structure
k Stable Streambanks e?V, l V
yy Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand) l L _ j?? c -
6 s-7/ (,rT,\T u6 Oxka rG.V
x Riparian Canopy Present (SP=1>50% closure)

w
X Undercut BanksAnstream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Scpt) 1 wO l s bU e? Q
fiob J GG??
Seeps/Groundwat2r Discharge (June thru Sept.) _
X Adjacent Floodplain Present - - -
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
T ?b 2 C/,t r'C?
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /e
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or So ils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:

Determination: '
Perennial Channel (stop) [] Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
® Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of imponantlunimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)

Evaluator's Signature:
((if other than C.O.E. project Man ,

1

n

sA q
NCDNVQ Stream Classification Form
Proem Name: AV4,,,? 61 p River Basin: 6442- Is 4 canny- / ? • Evaluator A k I J L P
Ot1'p Projm Number: Nearest Named Stream: L •yd?C. Latrtttde: ?S ?O 3s
D:nc: 816 101 USGS QUAD:6krr1a t7C--W't * Longinrde: I;o 71 -27
Loralion/Directions: ? d I ?.f
0A J V 1 'PLEASE NOTE: Ifewlwaor and land n ner agree tha the fearan it a rnaw•andr ditch, then use of"fa's"is aar
p nerea.nrn .41tn, yin the bear pmfeWanal fadgenenr of the evabwer, the feature it a nwr•n.ade ditch and no a tnadified
lj )F d rrY ' A nmural arnnn-tlrit raing:7aran ahorN nw be teed"
Primary Field Indicators: Ictra.o jv-be PerLj-)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Sueambed _ /i
C h ( J Are Natural Levees
? 7
(/ tJ Is The e Ctaumel Sinuous! U AIN 2
5 rev ?? 5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
11 Flood lain
J I'dGl? (. Is The Charmel Braided? 0
C P,<e- 7 Are Recent Alluvia) Deposits rose V 0 2 3
K Is There A Bankfull Bench 19 0 1 2
U t f 1 ?4 ttr? v) Is A Continuous Bed It Bank Presetrt? 0 1 2
'!'v' !T- A. onh o,u.d ' 7ch1 nd KTHOUr n
III) Is A.2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Mao And4.)r In Field) Prrsent? Yes-3
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINT3:?
1) Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
_ / ?e (l 1) 1 s There A Groundwater 3
IJ 7 Float/Discharec Pnctent 1 /
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATORPOIM.-j_ 2_
_ 3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way'? U 5 /n 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINT&--. O
Il Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Lasts) t.eatlitter
LA?,
j?
?b U Present In Cream v 5 0
5
•
j 2 I Sediment On Plan Or Debris Pr=A1'2 U S
3 Arc Wrack Lin Present? ' 5
(? W 4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 1 1.5

n s9Abor. : r nd 1
Last Knimw Rain) mvmn
I r
?
?
i U
During
Dry
5) is There water In Channel .5 1 1.5
3 _ d Conditions Or In Growing ea v
7
'
-0
N
)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Preseru In Sides C>f Channel (Or In Headcu Y.
1
s o
,,
rr
.VECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDIC4TORPOINT3: 't
<GI4 r, C. wa{js
•t Are Cr vfi h P =w) u ' '
5) Are Macrobenthos Presents .5 1 1.5
ook y r) Are iron Oxidizirw Bacteria/Funeus Presents S 1 1.5
/ 7) is Filamentous Algae Present? (M .5 1 1.5
S) Am Welland Plants in Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
r• Nt1TE• IrTord Abea.ce OfAC Phew in Sorombed ? 1 .75 95 0 0
Ar,\MSdAbort Ski Thia 'e UN S ' V nranr• .
' SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 1'S
TOTAL POINTS (Prilnary +Secondarv)= 1 tf Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATORrPOINTS: '
Secondarv Field Indicators. f0mi.UMNn10bVPVLj-) r
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM

APPLICANT NAME CSW S / lg4m- c1 p) DATE f /vim or7 L, a601
' CH NNEL WORK ti a culvert relocation etc) S4-r, Y)
NATERBODY/RIVER BASIN A?4ZL
6
IECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS S?r?, n? Cl? IV,>
COUNTY/CITY
ovrf
i
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaccans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
X Amphibians Prescnt/Breeding
X Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
x Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
X Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)
X RIPflc/Pool Structure

H 41
Drv 11P.
_ - X
L` Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand) I /
e 4 Q 0 S E
e 4- C4 r I/ f?'fe q VA
X Riparian Canopy Present (SP=h50% closure) VJ 0 v? C d
y
L Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
.[ Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)

Y Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Sept)
_
x Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
y

D Adjacent Floodplain Present
^L, ?-
y Wrack Material or Drift Lines k
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel p?+ •qt Wet•r a>e-' Mt r i as
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N
, IL,rparVyI -- u(yj"CrnI -rd Cl1&nrV4
Approx. Drainage Area:
y
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
® Intermittent Channel (proceed) L Unimportant Channel: LF
F1 Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of imponant/unimportant channel)
? Ditch Through Upland (no id)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project Man

SA-8
NCDWQ Stream ClassifcationForm
l• /
ProrcctName: AarSRiver Basia:61-44Wy4 CountyA'?LG?(. Evaluator.??k
O
• ??lv1?S?N
Dtit'Q Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: ? • ?el/?C Lataude: 3S 1U 3S Signaturef,
Daic: ? / G / O t USGS QUAD: C1,0 1e ,564 Longitude: boo T l z7 0
LocatimuDiredion5: I-Ilvf4,or1 Gwrt Aul,Ir x
'PLEASE NOTE: Qew4uaor and landowner agree lb9f the feaan it a mom-rrode duck, then use of day Joan is not
necec arr. Alm. lyin the best Profetsionel jadgonou of rho evd+raors Me fearwe b a man-mode dock and mar a modified
m.norol o"aff--A& rains $.Won shorld nor be sate
Primary Field Indicators: lcrtst.o-,v-bo ParL-)
'

Cpb ?t ?k 2) Is The USDA Texture In Sueambed
? Diflcrem From Surrourdine Temin?
3 Are Natural Levees Present?
0 1 2 4f ;k

2 3
t

4 Is The Channel Sinuous'I 3
U 2
t'G V

fl ,
' 19 5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Flood lain 9
U
?.Li (. I The Channel Braided 0
- 7 Are Recent Alluvial De sits Press tl 0
K I There a 11 Bench
] 2
k Presettt?
t bt B 0 1 2
an
Jl Is A Conu us Bed
) I s ? d. Q• B.. aw 'Iehl d T ine
111) Is A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Mao An&Vr In Field) Present? Yerc3 NogG`?
PRIMARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDIC4TORPOIN7S- It)
t L,r L P"Of
app ro • 10o
dvwA 54rea 1,,- 10
G" I VC/4

n

u

H

PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR PolN7s:? _
Secondary Field Indicators: iCsmh Om Nwmbw Pw Lj"l
1. Ceomor polo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1 I There A Head Cut Present In Channel'? .5 1 1.5
?Q / ?r & I ^?j 2) Is There A Gradc Control Point In Chancel? 0 .5 1.5
1 3) Does Topography Indicate A
7 1 1.5
n r ; P„C r Matto.) Drainage WaYl 0 /'/S?
,SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR P0I1M:1=S
s?14,e

4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 4?? 1 1.5
L'1 1 Known w itch ndirntd n s9 bow &dg 770 r nd!
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 65 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Arc HYdric Soils Present in Sides Of Channel (Ca In Headcut)T YetN0-0
,SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICI TOR POINTS-'--4--
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly PAC Mostly FACU Monty UPL
r• Nor& I(Tara/Abienae l Aa Planu In Soramrbd ? 1 .75 .5 0 0
A .V and Abo. Aio 17th SYm UNLESS SAV P,.rairl
.SEcoNDARYBIOLOGYINDIC4roRPOIN7S: -0
11Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flog/Discharge Present t 0 1 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR PoINTS: I • b
Il Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter /.Y

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
?CTION ID APPLICANT NAME SLJS AlL rSh C-10
'ROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.
VATERBODY/RIVER BASIN
tECENT WEATHER CONDIT]
sA~ ?
DATE v f7 G aCt7?
jCO//ULL NT)Y/CITY ,?ec,? l C l? ?Ide
'A 'A
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates

7? Amphibians Prcsent/Brceding lC $AG A ale /--r
X Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
x Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)

-
-
-- Riffle/Pool Structure

Stable Streambanks

t
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand) l
?'J?/` r rG ve, ?Dtw 41
Riparian Canopy Present (SP=h50% closure) W ?0
Undercut Banks/instream Habitat Structure
x Flow In Channel
- ?( Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru ScpL)

_ Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)

djacent Floodplain Present
n(?

?Qf oo' b tl'a Ut'/
not
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
y Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
important To Domestic Water Supply? Y16)
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:

Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) n important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) n Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (anach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd) o r4 'C- -? C q { Vt r-? 7K-
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project anger)
11

1

?Xpose? `OG?
Ably law
G ry, ve,1

t ?
lOP
0

u
<Sfi-?
:N'CD%VQ Stream Classification/Form(
I J L P
Provo Name:?1SI? L River Basis &4"t, Color Evaluator AO
DtvQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: OFt Latiwde:3S ID 3S Signature4/, ,,
• a
D:nc: 0G (o USGS QUAD:6fr1b#c•C-'rrf LDnOwdt :190 5 I a7
Loraiion/Directions: VA 6je -/AA 4.'A ( l? Te-d
'PLEASE NOTE: If enefaaw and landowner epee Char theJeza 6 a man-made dock. Shen we vf"Jane it not
sec Vr.V..4Lm. if in the Aar praJasional jwdaanmt Of fhe evdaavr, thefeaure u a nun,nrade 6reh and naf a e -Vud
nmwraf arnan-thin sing jgwe shmi ( ow be wed*
Primary Field Indicators: rerref•oee Nawbe Par lrne)
2) Is The USDA Texture In
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) IS A Contirttwus Bed dt Bank Ptesent? 0 1
•.N1 • Bsd d--k onad ' 'rchl d T O 'm r
I i) Is A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Moo And/Or In Field) Prose Ycr?3 Na
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11 Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate- Stron¢
1) Is Time A Groundwater
Flow/Discharac Present" 0 /1 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: •D
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR Pol vm.-
Secondary Field Indicators: flnrrerMN-barpo Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee Way" 0 -1 ?3' 1 1.5
.1 ECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: I . 5
'- " Arc wractt ones rrescnr•
l) Is Water In Channel And>48 Hrs.
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 L > t t.J
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
() Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In HeadeuO? Y-41 .S NO-0
.4ECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDIGITORPOINTS.-E-

M Il Hydrolory Absent Weak Moderate Strone

1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter /a
8) Are Welland Plants In Saumbed? SAV mostly Vnt, fnosuy r^a w masuy rna mwuy rna v nawwr ..
7• NUTS (fTaa/Abrawr a/AB Plows /n Svvaabed ? 1 .75 .5 0 0
Act VadAbow A- This Ye UNLESS YtVPn+•ar•.
.SEC'ONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:?U
TP1 T A ) D!l / A7T t r fif rear" T%. Or Formal To 19 Pvintt'Tie St mm It At LA"

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
5?-q . I
APPLICANTNAME CS0J I NGrs? GIP) DATES ?uS! Gi ?'flDf
ACTION 1D -----..._..----- ----.__._.__ J
'ROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)_
NATERBODY/RIVER BASIN
2ECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS LIIA , q
CO,U/NTY/CITY dt C? (
l?v rG; n t?Gf? T lq kn-
P SP NP Observation Comments or Descrintion
x Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present ?;f? ,?M?? l
n Benthic Macro Invertebrates
x Amphibians Present/Brecding
X Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
X Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others) ?v T l
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)
X Riffle/PoolStructurc
?c - - Stable Streambanks T- -
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand)
Riparian Canopy Present (SP=/>50% closure)
Undercut Banks/instream Habitat Structure r o c k O t t
Flow In Channel
X Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Sept.) f
6 `
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
B
X Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
x Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y/&
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) ® Important Channel: I DU + LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) [] Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimponant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature: 7 S?
(if other than C.O.E. project alter)

:\CDNVQttStream Classification /Form /?
ProKO:;anx: /,,motrV!S Gip RivaBasin: CG.?f..lA)4 Couary: J `Evaluator. ?fD !?1 J
II
DWO Projctm Number: Nearest Named Stream: L.90K Latitude: 3Sa,D 3S Signanue /t 7?
it /&/a / uses QUAD: (,?, 1ot.??f f Lo„V ?o S/ ?7
Date: r~N n!'la?'"1 w/vtr?
Tjl
LocatiotJDireaions: a
' PLEASE NOTE: If emi uaw and land mr+(n srree t)rar the fcaan b a man-trade retch. lAen we of"Jonn it nor
neccoom ALw. o yin the bat profeudanaljudgamel of the ewluarar, tAe feature is a man-made ditch and nor a modified
animal arrewn- ib rating rysen shoaW not be astO
Primary Field Indicators: rGr ko-t-wp•,L-)
1. Geomor holo Ab ent Weak Moderate Strong
1) IsTlure A Riffle Pool Seauena? 0 ) 2 3
2) 1s The USDA Texture In Streambed
Differerd FroSurroundin ' v 2
3 Are Natural Levees Present? t1 1
C,D V 1Vt 4 Is The Channel sin ! 0
s) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
SG Y\, Flood lain Presenial I 2 3
8 Is There A 13ankfUll Bench EXIM -
91 Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Preset? 0 I ]
er Chnel (As Indicated
1111 Is A 2 Order Cr Great an
_ On Tooo Mao And/C,r In Field) P sent? Yes-3 No?
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINM
11 Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strove
1) Is Tlxre A Groundwater ?I} 1
Floe/Discharee Present! l ! - '
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: D
ccot?j; v
?tat? ---
L%/
Il Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Lasts) Leafliner
8) Are Wetiand Plants In Streambed? SAY Mostly OBL Mosdy?CW Mostly RAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
!. NOTE IfT W Abiwuv O/Aa Monts In Swwmbd ? 1 75 .S 0 0
A,.VrrdAbow 57•i 77,r, Sr. UNLESS ' v r-.
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR MINIM- 25-
i 3.75
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: rC,rcI. OM Nwba PV LJny
Natural Drainage Wat'i 0
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since S 1 1.5
L t !(Hawn Rain" •Nl' t h dimrd n 19 hove r d 1 •
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry U .S 1 1.5
Conditions Or In rowi Season
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or in Headeut)? Yes-1 5 No
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINT":
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
,CTION 1D APPLICANT NAME C
-5A-)1 t
MAr5 L
DATE
ROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
VATERBODY/RIVER BASIN / C4l4w COUNTY/CITY
;SCENT WEATHER CONDITIONS Synv,y V, Na ra?? t',,. s? Tg Lr.
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Pmsent/Breeding
X Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others) _ _-
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)
Rifllc/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand) C? ?? S
h
Riparian Canopy Present (SP=h50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Sept.) -
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present

x? Wrack Material or Drift Lines
l - -
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel i
important To Domestic Water Supply? Y mi
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination:
[] Perennial Channel (stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
itch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project ger)

0V
AU4,4 r-pck
N.CDINVO Stream Classification Form
Proga Nang: A&rs? K, River Basin: CCAA L., tl 4 C. q t e? Evaluator. C 4 j?
0"'0 Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: L •ua (vC. Latitttde: 3S Io 3S signature: C
n r1 /
Date: A uyv 2&,aA USGS QUAD* ?ff?tK'G?1 Longiode: ?Da S f ;-7
CI '?V
Location/Directions: A v?f•?L
• P L EAS E NOTE: If ewWmor and Iond-mer agree that the ftarun u a ntaw-mod' duet, then use of dAir jam is a"
ttermw.v...4bn. iJin the best Professional judgnnon of the ewlamor, du feware it a mum-made loch and aw a modified
ntnarof arrern-iAir rating sjmem shorld nw be war
Primary Field Indicators: jcjrckoneN-be P-Lbu)
2) Is The USDA Texture In
S) Is There M Active (Or Relic)
91 Is A Contiturous Bed & Bank Present? 0 r L`/ '
•Nt/ lffid a Boni, owsd 'tchl std O
tot Is A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As indicated
On Togo Mao AndVr in Field) Present? Yer-3 Neu l
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDIGt TOR POIN7S:
Il Hydrology Absent Weak Nloderate_ Strome
1) Is Thera A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Presets' 0 1 2 '
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1 • y

4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since (p 5 1 1.5
•t 1 Known 'I • r i h ndicnted In e9 bow X-2 M t ^d e
5) Is There Water In Chanted During Dry .5 I 1.5
Conditions Or In roNvin Season)?
6) Are Hid i, Soils Ptesem in Sides Of Channel tOr !n Headtkttl? Yo 1?5 IV,
.SEC'ONDARYHYDROLOGYINDIC4TOR POINTS.*-' S
?b? 8) Are Wetland Plants in Socambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Moody UPL
t•..VOTE JrTwafAbseacaOfAll Plows InSuva- ed 1 7 .5 0 0
e„`??? ?' L?Nti As.y„ ladAbow Ski This UNLESS V ra+anr .
J ((( .1'EC0NDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: . S
?. 7s
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Secondary)=_(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
9 -11
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way'/ 0 5 1 / 1.3)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
IL Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) l.eallitter ?.,
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 3
Secondary Field Indicators, fCtKbU ehae bar Par L,ne)

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
. GSW S
CTION ID ._..._.._...................__.....__._..._.......__._.. APPLICANT NAME
ROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, ?
IATFRRnnV/RIVF.R BASIN , (-
ECENT WEATHER CONDITI
aWl , Q57"
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks

-
-
_ Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rocka
Riparian Canopy Presen) S . )n Y I pf ?lvtitr l? c kw"les
1
1 Y _x ?tir 1„e
Undercut Banks/Instrea
Flow In Channel
Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/(Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Sept.) _
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material-or-Drift Lines
9 E_
Hydrophytic Vegetation intadjacent to channel Vq'im Uvvl
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y'LJ
L
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) U important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
a Intermittent Channel (proceed) ( Unimportant Channel: Sn LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of importantlunimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
r,
I
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project Manager)
P = Present SP = Strongly Present NP = Not Present
./ ar<N PL
-f , ) ! reel1K to

DATE ?D +
COUNTY/CITY Caj'CA
1!'1 - A

IJ?

11
1
1

1

i
Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12
July S, 2002
Photograph A: Bank erosion and exposed concrete fence anchor of abutting residential
fence on Little Hope Creek. Note close proximity of residence. Riprap to be used to
stabilize streambank.
Photograph B: Bank erosion on Little (lope Creek. Note close proximity of structure on
abutting residential property. Gabion to be used to stabilize streambank.
Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements July 5, 2002
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12

it

Photograph C: Bank erosion on Little Hope Creek. Note close proximity of residential
fence. Riprap to be used to stabilize streambank.
Photograph D: Bank erosion on Little Hope Creek. Note established riparian coverage.
Riprap to be used to stabilize streambank.
Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements July S, 2002
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12

Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements July 5, 2002
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12

t Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements July 5, 2002
LAW Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12

t
t

r

TABLE I
RSH ROAD AREA STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJE
STREAMBANK STABILIZATION PROJECT IMPACTS
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER f3
LF of Length of
Affected Stream Bank
Reach No. Properties Channel Impact Stabilization Treatment Type
LITTLE HOFE CREEK
I
I 3631 Annlin Ave.
3637 Annlin Ave.
Little Hope Creek
31
31
riprap - FBS 4`
I
I 3637 Annlin Ave.
3643 Annlin Ave.
Little Hope Creek
40
40
riprap - FBS 4
I 3643 Annlin Ave. Little Hope Creek 70.5 70.5 riprap - FBS 4
I
I 600 Hollis Ave.
608 Hollis Ave.
Little Hope Creek
41
82
gabion - GBW 1'
I 608 Hollis Ave. Little Hope Creek 54 54 riprap - FBS 4
I
I 816 Hartford Ave.
822 Hartford Ave.
Little Hope Creek
40
40
riprap - FBS 4
I
I 822 Hartford Ave
633 Shawnee Ave.
Little Hope Creek
51
51
riprap - FBS 4
1 633 Shawnee Ave. Little Hope Creek 21 21 riprap - FBS 4
I 633 Shawnee Ave. Little Hope Creek 17 17 riprap - FBS 4
I 633 Shawnee Ave. Little Hope Creek 43 43 riprap - FBS 4
II
11 532 Hartford Ave.
538 Hartford Ave.
Little Hope Creek
59
59 riprap - FBS 10'
riprap - FBS 4
II 518 Hartford Ave. Little Hope Creek 100 100 riprap - FBS 11+
II
II 544 Hartford Ave.
550 Hartford Ave.
Little Hope Creek
38.5
38.5
riprap - FBS 4
I
I 3701 Annlin Ave.
939 Hartford Ave.
Little Hope Creek
22
44
riprap on bank
I
I 3701 Annlin Ave.
939 Hartford Ave.
Little Hope Creek
25
50
gabion - GBW 1
Total Impacts to Little Hope Creek 653 741
UININAMEI) TRIBUTARY #1
III 432 Webster Pl.
438 Webster Pl. Unnamed Tributary # 1 50 50 riprap - FBS 4
III 1218 Webster Pl.
1212 Webster Pl. Unnamed Tributary #1 33 33 riprap - FBS 4
Total Impacts to Unnamed Tributary #1 83 83
SELWYIN FARM TRIBUTARY
IV 939 Hartford Ave. Selwyn Farm Trib. 12 24 gabion drop
structure
Total Impacts to Selwyn Farm Tributary t2 24
TOTAL IMPACTS 748 848
FBS 4 - Full Bank Stabilization Type 4 (Figure D4)
' GBW 1 - Gabion Wall Installation (Figure 139)
FBS 10 - Full Bank Stabilization Type 10 (Figure 136)
+ FBS 11 - Full Bank Stabilization Type 11 (Figure D7)
? Gabion drop structure for velocity control and grade transition at confluence of Little Hope Creek and
Selwyn Farms Tributary

N
E
W M "
W
w
W ?
al
(s.
? W
.+ a
C ?
r „
Fit
V
W
Ea I
W
I
V
zi I
Lr
I
w
c
CIS (1)
r- o 0 O o o L.
L O.
O •L by
L C a+
U
G .
?+ ?+
? y L]
O •?"" L CL
O 'L
C
O CC? _N N O y bp y GA O
V ti
1 N /? 'x N O
L
in V O
L
Ll O
L
Ll U r
1 C y
' .1 N
'
+ U
a+ . Q) . N ?- ? N
O .o x ca c? O m O O a) N O . a x m .O x cc O
L
O s
O O
* N =
O
4-
C 0 O y 4
O? O O O O i `
C O $ 4.
G O a?
_
I
C ?•+
U N
- N _
O 7 U E U N E O
r
O 3
.r
O v 0
`d m O cl Cd O cl O chi a o
" O
o O.•v t?
° :t?,
r-
° i a o. 0.10
C CL
a
° a
a fl ?.o ? .5
•
• o. Z . 0 cqj - o
Ffy o O Y (¢ W Cd c W
U } O 0. _G m U U
Q. O
0.
cc
0
Q G

O
+?+ CU% (::, ! QO AO N v7 N V) QO QO N N
G ?,. I N M ? M d' M M N M

ar
u
00
\0
N
vl
N
N
?
OO
00

N

N...
N
N N "1' N N N cn

i
?
O
U
? c? ?O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
L

IT
cz
Rf
'C;
0 co
<U CZ
coco
cOC
c
• 0
0.'
? L C. .r_
^
..
• -:
.
.:
..
am
'
?.-' L ?
.:
G _ L L
G ? .. C
G L y
,
?
. Y . N N N . N- N ? U.. E

v c
cz L'
i iC GL C C
co C ? C, 0 0
0 0 o a o a O a a? E

O • .?
•
O • ?
O • 02
U 0"
U 02
U ,r
a
U

V J F" yy
U E, y
U F" y
U F- E
.a u
a ?g C D
E C r2
a -
a .
I

i ?
LJ
?
N O
? N
?
?
N
ti
C ?
i.U U U U .-- r? U U a, 2

c o `° c
CIO co

tiL

N
7
U
D
N
N
cn
N
O
D
3
N
U
cts
C
O
0
U
by
C
x ?
C
U U
C* O
CL ?
>
? U
O L
C 440
_. M
3
o0p
? w
o a?
i n
C. -

r.
' North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
tLisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
March 1, 2001
Michael lagnocco
LAW Engineering and Environmental
' 2801 Yorkmont Rd
Suite 100
Charlotte NC 28208
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
RE: Marsh Road CIP, Charlotte;-L-aw Project 30100-0-0369, Phase 12, Mecklenburg County;
' ERO1-8570
Thank you for your letter of January 9, 2001; concerning the above project:
' We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we
' have no comment on the project as currently 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 919/733-4763.
' Sincerely,
t David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:pda

Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617
' Restoration 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh . NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone] •715-4801

`
LAwGIBB
GROUP
January 19, 2001
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Attention: Mr. Mark Cantrell
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Subject: Request for Evaluation
City of Charlotte Storm Water Services
Marsh Road CIP
Charlotte, North Carolina
LAW Project 30100411-0369, Phase 12
Dear Mr. Cantrell:
' The City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) has retained Law Engineering and Environmental
Services, Inc. (LAW) to provide environmental services for the above-identified capital improvements
project. It is our understanding that this project may require Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting. On
' behalf of CSWS, we are hereby contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the
presence of federally protected species within the project area that may be affected by the proposed
project. We 'are hereby requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse
impacts relative to the interests of -your agency. The project vicinity and location are presented on the
attached Figure 1.
As indicated on Figure 1, the study area is located within the Little Hope Creek watershed, approximately
three and one-half miles south-southwest of downtown Charlotte and encompasses the Sedgefield,
Colonial, and Ashbrook Clawson Village neighborhoods. The watershed is generally bordered to the
north by South Boulevard, to the west by Scaleybark Road, to the south by Woodlawn Road, and to the
east by Marsh Road and Park Road. Waters of the U.S. located within the watershed include Little Hope
Creek and several unnamed tributaries to Little Hope Creek, a tributary of Sugar Creek. Approximately
8,200 linear feet (10 of stream channel occur within this watershed. Land use is predominantly
residential. Proposed project activities currently include upgrading the storm drainage system at five
identified locations along Little Hope Creek and its tributaries, throughout the neighborhoods of
Sedgefield, Colonial, and Ashbrook Clawson Village. It is anticipated that the proposed channel
improvements should largely occur within the bed and bank of the existing channels and that temporary
construction activities should take place within 300 feet of each stormwater improvement site. The USGS
7.5-Minute Topographic Map that covers the project area is Charlotte East, North Carolina.
r LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
2801 'Yorkmont Road, Suite 100 *Charlotte, NC 28208
' 704-357-8600 - Fax: [phone]
Serving the Charlotte area for over 50 years

Mr. Mark Cantrell
January 19, 2001
Page 2
If you have any questions, please call Mike Iagnocco at (704).357-8600 extension 5543. Thank you for
your attention to this matter. We appreciate your cooperation with this process.
Sincerely,
LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Michael A. la oc Richard B. Darling, C.E.
Project Manager Principal
Environmental Scientist
MAI/RBD: bll 8Y Ail
WITH PERMISSION
cc: Mary C. Murray, Permit Administrator (CSWS)
Attachment
i
13 .1
Y3B
i
i
i
i
?_. Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series: Charlotte-East, NC (1988)

' Urbanized Area
A
i
t
W
pprox
ma
e
atershed Boundary
' ---- Streams
Highways
i1• fi• Structures
Storm-water Improvement Sites
Q Stream Channel Segment Identification

I
NOT TO SCALE
' GJprojects/30140Environmental/Job&20000369-City SWS112Marsh/Marsh Road Location Map.ppt
City of Charlotte
Storm Water Services LAW
r Marsh Road CIP
LAWGIBB GROUP MEMBER
Mecklenburg County, NC
North Carolina Vicinity Man
Mecklenburg County
Vicinity Map
Prepared: //19/,0/
Checked: /9- 401
Site Location Map
30100-0-0369
1
North Carolina
t Department of Environment and Natural Peseurces
Division of Parks and Recreation ..r....r+ ••??
' Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDFNR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Philip K. NIcK.nelly, Director
January 29, 2001
' Mr. Ben Leatherland
LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
2801 York nont Road
' Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
FAX [phone]
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and Significant
' Natural Heritage Areas Near the Marsh Road CIP, City of Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Leatherland:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NC NHP) does not have records for rare species, high
' quality natural communities, or significant natural heritage areas (SNHAs) near the Marsh Road CIP,
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC. page ' A list of all elements known from Mecklenburg County is available on the NC. NHP
exists at the swe,bhey may
http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html. If habitat for any of these species
be present there. Acquired knowledge of the site habitat should determine i£a survey is necessary.
Please contact me at 919/715-8700 if you have questionsor need more information.
t Sincerely,
' w
/ame L. Amoroso, Botanist o
Natural Heritage Program
0
/JLA
' S
N

' 1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615
Phone:[phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR'
RECYCLED/
EQUAL OPPORTU`(TY `+ AFFIR`IATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50,'o L10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
PAGE.02
' UL-03-2802 15:38 CHARLOTTE ENGINEERING DEP
' F)L ING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
MARSH ROAD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
' CITY OF CHARLOTTE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
April 26, 2002
An environmental assessment (EA).has been prcparcd, pursuant to the requirerncnts of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, for the proposed Marsh Road Drainage bnprovement
project. .
' The City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) is proposing to make improvements to the
Marsh Road storm drainage system in an area located on Little Hope Creek and two associated
tributaries, in an effort to eliminate flooding of streets and structures. The existing drainage
' system regularly experiences streambank erosion problems; and flooding to streets, homes and
yards. CSWS will utilize and improve site specific sfreambank stabilization techniques at
5,200 if of jurisdictional stream
various points along approximately. 748 linear feet (10 o .... the
' channels within the study area. Additionally, CSWS plans to replace culvert and pipe systems at
11 separate locations within the study area.
' The project area is located within the City of Charlotte, North Carolina approximately three and
one-half miles south/southwest of downtown Charlotte and extends into the upper reaches of the
' Little Hope Creek watershed. The project encompasses the Sedgefield, Colonial, and Ashbrook
Clawson neighborhoods, and is bordered to the north by South Boulevard, to the south and west
by Scaleybark Road, to the south by Woodlawn Road, and to the east by Marsh Road.
' This project will impact approximately 748 if of jurisdictional stream channel, including 670 If
of spot repair (i.e., involving small channel segments typically ranging in length from
t approximately 21 if to 100 If) streambank stabilizatiod"using riprap, and 78 If of bank
stabilization using gabions. The watershed contributing to this portion of Little Hope Creek and
its associated tributaries is approximately 520 acres. Area land use is predominantly single-
family and multi-family residential.
Several alternatives were considered for the proposed streambank stabilization activities
' associated with the Marsh Road Area Storm Drainage Improvements project. Little Hope Creek
and its associated tributaries were evaluated to deterinine appropriate measures for sneambank
erosion control methods. Among the options considered were bioengineering methods as well as
' the use of riprap and gabions, in conjunction with the removal of urban debris from the subject
streams (Priority IV restoration). Priority I - III restoration methods were also considered. A

JUL-?s-?bb? 15:Jb k_HHKLUIIt tNU1NttK1NU Utr 1.Ue
no-action alternative was also considered for the proposed storm' drainage improvements. The
spot repair e=bilization of se- e:rtly eroded strcan 16a 1,s through .the utilization of riprap and
gabions is the recommended alternative to address erosion problems within the project area.
Potential impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., associated with sediment and erosion of
stream banks will be minimized through the implementation and maintenance of a state-approved
erosion and sedimentation control plan. Additional management measwes include limiting
construction to dry weather periods, exposing no more soil along the streambank than can be
temporarily stabilized within "one-days-work" (i.e., approximately 10010, and, if possible based
on channel width, temporarily diverting stream flow away from the bank undergoing repair.
Based. on the findings of the EA and on the impact avoidance/mitigation measures- contained
therein, it is concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to the
environment. This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are prerequisites for the
issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification by the Division 'of Water Quality.. Pending
approval by the State Clearinghouse, the environmental review for this project will be concluded.
An envirorunental impart statement will not be prepared for this project.
Division of Water Quality
April 26, 2002.
TOT AL R.02