20040920 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20070831

KZ?1`1 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John R. Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator / WETLANDS/401 GROUP
Habitat Conservation Program
JUN 2 5 2004
DATE: June 23, 2004
SUBJECT: Review of 401 Certification Applications, WATER QUALITY SECTION.-
City of Charlotte Stormwater Services,
Columbus Circle/Ashley Park/Westerly Hills (DWQ # 040940) and
Hidden Valley (DWQ # 040920), Mecklenburg County
The City of Charlotte is requesting 401 Water Quality Certification from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality for both Capital Improvement Projects. The
NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our
staff are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Both projects are indicated as needed to resolve stormwater as well as flooding and
erosion issues along waterways in the Catawba River Basin drainage. DWQ # 040940
impacts are indicated to be done without a full bioengineering analysis. Impacts for the
project include soft bank stabilization, culverting and hard stabilization. Cumulative
impacts are 169 linear feet of riprap, 900 linear feet of soft stabilization and nineteen (19)
linear feet of culvert extension to unnamed tributaries of Stewart and Taggart Creeks.
1,625 linear feet of stream enhancement is proposed. DWQ # 040920 impacts are
indicated to be bioengineering channel relocation, reshaping of channels and planting
banks with grasses. Cumulative impacts are 120 linear feet to an unnamed tributary of
Little Sugar Creek.
Based on our review of these similar urban projects, the following non-prioritized general
recommendations are provided for your consideration:
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
DWQ 040940 and 2
DWQ 040920
June 23, 2004
1. Only native plants should be used for the projects. Minimum twenty-five (25)
foot undisturbed natural buffers should be restored and maintained.
2. Since public monies are involved, deed restrictions or other enforceable
documents should be required for protecting these stream buffers.
3. Any riprap placed in channels should be installed in a manner to maintain or
restore a thalweg to ensure low flow aquatic life passage (to the extent
practicable).
4. Wetlands should be enhanced and permanently preserved as natural
undisturbed areas for stormwater and habitat benefits.
5. Culverts 48 inches diameter or larger should be buried a foot into the
streambed. Culverts less than 48 inches diameter should be buried to a depth
equal to or greater than 20% their size to provide aquatic life passage (where
practicable). These measurements must be based on natural thalweg depths.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: Amanda Jones, COE
o?C? I NA ?U Miclracl F. Eaclcy. Govcrnor
William 0. Ross Jr.. Secretary
North Carolina Depurtmcnl of f?nvimnnrcnt and Natural Resourccs
? j 7 Alan N\. Klimek. PI.. Direclor
;r
Division of'\Valci Quality
0',. C'olccn N. Sullins. ltcputl Director
Division of Watcr Quality
Mr. Jarrod Karl
July 7, 2004
DWQ# 04-0920
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP Mecklenburg County
City of Charlotte, Stormwater Services JUL 1 2.2004
600 East Fourth St.
Charlotte, NC 28202 WATER QUALITY SECTION
Subject: Hidden Valley/Austin Dr. Drainage Project, Charlotte
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Karl:
You have our approval in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below to temporarily
impact 68 linear feet and permanently impact 120 linear feet of intermittent stream channel to Little Sugar
Creek in order to proceed with the stormwater control project in Mecklenburg County, as described in your
application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on June 2, 2004. After reviewing your application,
we have determined that this project is covered by Water Quality General Certification Number 3402, which
can be viewed on our web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The General Certification allows you
to use Nationwide Permits Number 39 when it is issued to you by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE). Please note that you should get any other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with
your project, including those required by (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, and
Water Supply Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certification will expire when the associated USACOE's 404 permit expires unless
otherwise specified in the General Certifications. This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that
you described in your application. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be
required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be
given a copy of the Certification and approval letter; and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached Certification, as well as
the additional conditions listed below:
1. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the
footprint of the impacts depicted in the Preconstruction Notification application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
management Practices (BMP) shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur.
2. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the Sediment and erosion control measures must
be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual (the Manual). The measures shall be
maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-
owned or leased borrow pits associated with project.
ot`hCarolina ?! *A
N,Natura!!if
MIkDEN;.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (nhone) 919-733-6R93 (fax). (hnn 12n enr Starr nc m nrIcetl:m(e)
3. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters. However, if placement
of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, the devices shall be
removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date the Division of Land Resources has
released the project.
4. Upon completion of the project, the Applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401 /Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality. Please send photographs
upstream and downstream of each culvert site to document cormct installation along with the Certificate of
Completion form.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 1506 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final
and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-1699
or Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-733-9721.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AJlaj
Attachments
cc: Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Wetlands Unit - Cyndi Karoly
Greg Antemann - Carolina Wetland Services
Central Files
File Copy
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Alan Johnson
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: Rex Gleason
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name City of Charlotte: Hidden Valley / Austin Drive
Project Number 04 0920
Recvd From APP
Received Date 6/8/04 Recvd By Region
Project Type
County Mecklenburg
County2
Region Mooresville
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req. ME
39 BBLH OO O N F- 11-137-8 ?I - 30,834. 0.06 188.00 r-
x ?-
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? Q Y O N Did you request more info? Q Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? Q Y O N
Is Mitigation required? p Y O N Recommendation: Q Issue O Issue/COnd O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 351560 Longitude (ddmmss) 804618
Comments:
Staff visited the site on A rip 1 22, 2004. Stormwater control issue. The site is located behind several
houses. Wetland is not of high qualoty due to human impact. Stormflow discharges into the upper
portion of the wetland. Stormflow/drainage is to be diverted away from a residence that has been
constructed admacent to a "wetland" area. A couple of minor "ditches" are to be constructed
(elevation of ditch is not to change from existingtopQgrapy) in the "headwater" of the wetland and
the drainage allowed to flow more freely to the main body of the wetland and into a pond that is also
on site,
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Facility Name City of Charlotte: Hidden Valley / Austin Drive County Mecklenburg
Project Number 04 0920
Regional Contact:
Date:
Comments (continued from page 1):
Alan Johnson
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 2
ST M20
NAM
Services WASIME
wE June 7, 2004
Mr. John Dorney rG4N?S?401 GRoup
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit j tIN 0 'q 2004
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250 WATER Q ?f
Raleigh, NC 27604/7 YSECj/
Subject: Pre Construction Notification Pursuant to a
Nationwide Permit No. 39
City of Charlotte Storm Water Services
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
Dear Mr. Dorney:
City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) is submitting a Pre-Construction
Notification pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 39 for the Hidden Valley CIP -
Austin Drive Drainage Improvements in Charlotte, North Carolina. The project area
is located approximately 1.3 miles south of the North Tryon Street - Interstate 85
interchange (Attachment A - Figures 1 and 2). Unavoidable permanent impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. under Nationwide Permit No. 39 total approximately
120 linear feet of Unimportant Intermittent stream channel
(Streams B and C). Temporary impacts associated with Nationwide Permit No. 39
total approximately 0.06 acres of Wetland AA, 24 linear feet of Unimportant
Intermittent Stream C, and approximately 44 linear feet of Unimportant Intermittent
Stream B. We are sending you seven copies of this submittal in accordance with the
notification requirements for WQC No. 3402, effective March 18, 2002 and
March 28, 2003.
If you have any questions concerning this project, don't hesitate to contact me at
[e-mail] or [phone]. Thank you for your attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Jarrod J. Karl
Wetland Scientist
Tn rannrtrlrainana nrnhlamc• gU_RdIN
Carolina Wetland Services
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 39
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2004-0636
June 7, 2004
WETLANDS/401 GROUP
Prepared For: JUN 0 S 2004
The City of Charlotte Storm Water Services WATER QUALITY SECTION
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
[phone]
Prepared By:
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
[phone]
ill
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230 • Charlotte, NC 28217 • [phone] Office • [phone] Fax
;At www.carolinawetiandservices.com
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements June 7, 2004
I Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application Project No. 2004-0636
Table of Contents
'
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 2
Current Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 2
Jurisdictional Delineation .................................................................................................................. 2
Results ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Agency Correspondence ...............................................................................................
......................... 5
'
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 5
Protected Species ............................................................................................................................... 5
Purpose and Need for the Project .......................................................................................................... 6
'
Avoidance and Minimization ................................................................................................................ 6
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters ............................................................................................ 6
Compensatory Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 7
List of Attachments
I Attachment A - Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
Attachment A - Figure 2. NRCS Soil Survey
Attachment A - Figures 3. Wetland Boundary Survey
'
Attachment B - Pre-Construction Notification Application - Nationwide Permit No. 39
Attachment C - Routine On-Site Data Forms
Attachment D
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
'
=
Attachment E - USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
Attachment F Representative Photographs
Attachment G - Agency Correspondence
' Attachment H - Proposed Impacts
1
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements June 7, 2004
' Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application Project No. 2004-0636
Executive Summary
' The Hidden Valley Neighborhood Improvement Project - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
Project is located in Charlotte, North Carolina, approximately 1.3 miles south of the North Tryon
Street - Interstate 85 interchange (Attachment A - Figures 1 and 2). Charlotte Storm Water
Services (CSWS) has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide permitting
services for this project.
' The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are three
jurisdictional stream channels (Streams A - C), one jurisdictional wetland area (Wetland AA),
' one jurisdictional open water area (Pond A), and one non jurisdictional channel (Channel C)
located within the project limits. Unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. under Nationwide Permit No. 39 total approximately 120 linear feet of Unimportant
Intermittent stream channel (Streams B and C). Temporary impacts associated with Nationwide
Permit No. 39 total approximately 0.06 acres of Wetland AA, 24 linear feet of Unimportant
Intermittent Stream C, and approximately 44 linear feet of Unimportant. Intermittent Stream B.
This project will result in the net increase of approximately 66 linear feet of new stream channel
' through relocation. System wide pipe replacements will be completed under Nationwide Permit
No. 3 and are under notification thresholds. On behalf of CSWS, CWS is submitting a Pre-
Construction Notification (PCN) application with attachments in accordance with Nationwide
Permit Nos. 3 and 39 and Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3402 (Attachment B).
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements June 7, 2004
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application Project No. 2004-0636
Existing Conditions
The Hidden Valley Neighborhood Improvement Project - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
site is located in Charlotte, North Carolina, approximately 1.3 miles south of the North Tryon
Street - Interstate 85 interchange (Attachment A - Figures 1 and 2). Charlotte Storm Water
Services (CSWS) has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide permitting
services for this project.
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is a mix of residential and commercial. The project area
is generally comprised of residential and agricultural with small maintained lawns and wooded
areas. Dominant vegetation includes Kentucky fescue (Festuca spp.), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba), and red maple (Ater rubrum).
According to the soil survey of Mecklenburg County', on-site soils consist of Helena sandy loam
(HeB) (Attachment A - Figure 2). This soil type is moderately well drained, exhibits slow
permeability, and has low water capacity. Helena soils are also known to exhibit hydric
inclusions in Mecklenburg County.'
Jurisdictional Delineation
From July 9 to July 15, 2003, CWS's Kip Kereeman and Tyler Burgess delineated on-site
jurisdictional waters of the U.S.' within the project area. Jurisdictional areas were delineated on
site using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Routine On-Site Determination
Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.4
Routine On-Site Data Forms representative of Wetland AA and adjacent upland areas have been
included as Attachment C.
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ)' and USACE guidance. These classifications included sampling with
a D-shaped dip net, taking photographs, and defining breakpoints (a point at which a channel
changes classification) within each on-site stream channel. NCDWQ Stream Classification and
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1980. Soil survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Z USDA, 1986. North Carolina Hydric Soils List.
"Jurisdictional waters of the U.S." includes essentially all surface waters such as: all navigable waters and their tributaries, all
interstate waters and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all impoundments of these waters.
° Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
i
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements June 7, 2004
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application Project No. 2004-0636
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets representative of Streams A through C and
Channel A have been included as Attachments D and E.
' Results
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are three
jurisdictional stream channels (Streams A - C), one jurisdictional wetland area (Wetland AA),
one non jurisdictional channel (Channel A), and one jurisdictional open water area (Pond A)
located within the project limits (Attachment A - Figure 3). On-Site waters are unnamed
' tributaries to Little Sugar Creek. Little Sugar Creek is part of the Catawba River basin
(HU# 03050103)' and is rated "Class C Waters" by the NCDWQ. On-Site jurisdictional areas
are summarized in Table 1. Jurisdictional areas have been field-verified by Ms. Amanda Jones
of the USACE on June 4, 2004
Table 1. Summarv of On-Site.lurisdictional Areas

Jurisdictional
Area

Classification
Approximate
Length (If)
Approximate
Acreage (ac.)7
NCDWQ
Score USACE Stream
Quality
Assessment
Worksheet
Stream A Unimportant Intermittent 235 0.007 ac. 18.5 18
Perennial 390 -- 29.25 48
Stream B Unimportant Intermittent 248 0.01 ac. 16.5 29
Stream C Unimportant Intermittent 150 0.01 ac. 22 28
Wetland AA Forested -- 1.54 ac. -- --
Pond A N/A -- 0.15 (on-site) -- --
Total 10251f 1.71 ac. -- --
Stream A flows west across the site for approximately 625 linear feet until flowing into Wetland
AA (Attachment A - Figure 3). This stream channel was evaluated to have both Unimportant
Intermittent and Perennial sections and exhibits moderate flow with a one to three-foot average
' s North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999 Stream Classification Method. Version 2.0.
e "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. . U.S. Geological Survey. 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina
i'
Acreage was determined by multiplying the two foot ordinary high water width by the length of the channel.
3
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements June 7, 2004
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application Project No. 2004-0636
ordinary high water width and substrate consisting of silt to coarse sand
(Attachments D and E - SCP's 1 and 2).
Approximately 235 linear feet of Stream A flows through an active farm. This section of
Stream A is characterized by severe bank erosion and the absence of a riparian area. This
section of Stream A was evaluated to be Unimportant Intermittent and is severely degraded.
Unimportant Intermittent Stream A scored 18.5 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ
Stream Classification Form and 18 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet (Attachments D and E - SCP 1). A photograph of this section of Stream
A has been included as Attachment F - Photograph A.
Downstream of the farm Stream A flows through Wetland AA for approximately 390 linear feet
(Attachment A - Figure 3). This section of Stream A was evaluated to be Perennial and
exhibited more stable banks and the presence of a forested riparian buffer. This section of
Stream A scored 29.25 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
and 48 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
(Attachments D and E SCP2).
Stream B flows south for approximately 250 linear feet (0.01 acre) from a pipe outfall at Austin
Drive until it flows into Wetland AA (Attachment A - Figure 3). This stream channel was
evaluated to be Unimportant Intermittent and exhibited no flow at the time of field investigation.
Stream B has a two-foot average ordinary high water width and channel substrate consisting of
coarse sand (Attachments D and E - SCP3). Stream B scored 16.5 out of a possible 71 points on
the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form and 29 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. A photograph of Stream B has been included as
Attachment F - Photograph B.
Stream C flows northwest for approximately 150 linear feet (0.01 acre) from a pipe outfall
between the properties at 210 and 220 Dawn Circle until it flows into Wetland AA
(Attachment A - Figure 3). This stream channel was evaluated to be Unimportant Intermittent
and exhibited weak flow at the time of field investigation. Stream C has a two-foot average
ordinary high water width and channel substrate consisting of coarse sand
(Attachments D and E - SCP4). Stream C scored 22 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ
Stream Classification Form and 28 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality
4
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements June 7, 2004
' Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application Project No. 2004-0636
Assessment Worksheet. A photograph of Stream C has been included as Attachment F -
' Photograph E.
' Wetland AA is approximately 1.54 acres in size and is contiguous with Stream A and Pond A.
This wetland exhibits hydrophytic vegetation consisting of buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and jewel
flower (Impatiens capensis). Saturation within the upper twelve inches of the soil profile and
low-chroma soils (5Y 4/1) with mottles (2.5YR 5/8) were also observed within this wetland
(Attachment C - DP 1). A photograph of Wetland AA has been included as
Attachment F - Photograph C.
' One jurisdictional open water area lies within the project limits (Pond A). Pond A is
approximately 1.33 acres in size (0.15 acre on site). Pond A is located along the western border
of the site, contiguous with Wetland AA. All on-site waters flow into Pond A. A photograph of
' Pond A has been included as Attachment F - Photograph D.
Non-Jurisdictional Channel C is located at a pipe outfall to the south of Austin Drive. This
' channel was determined non-jurisdictional based on the absence of sinuosity, channel substrate,
and flow. This channel is approximately 100 linear feet long and is not connected to any
' jurisdictional features. A photograph of Non-jurisdictional Channel C has been included as
Attachment F - Photograph F.
1
Agency Correspondence
' Cultural Resources
' A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on May 26, 2004, to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that
' would be affected by the project. To date no response has been received.
' Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on
May 26, 2004 to determine the presence of any federally-listed or candidate endangered or
' threatened species or critical habitat located within the project area. In a letter dated June 1,

Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements June 7, 2004
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application Project No. 2004-0636
2004, the NCNHP responded stating they have "no record of rare species, significant natural
communities, or priority natural areas at the site no within a mile of the project area
(Attachment G).
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project is to make storm drainage improvements within an existing
residential area. CSWS has received several complaints from neighborhood residents regarding
standing water, erosion, and residential flooding. This project is intended to alleviate channel
erosion and flooding by improving the capacity of the existing storm drainage system. A
secondary goal of this project is to improve water quality by removing storm flows from a highly
degraded channel that runs through an unvegetated farm yard. The farm yard is heavily used by
livestock and contributes significant sediment and pollutants to downstream waters during storm
events.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Under the proposed plan, all of Stream A (Unimportant Intermittent and Perennial),
most of Unimportant Intermittent Stream C, and most of Wetland AA will be avoided. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures will also be used to minimize disturbance to downstream
waters. In order to stabilize the relocated channel, construction will include installation of grassed
turf reinforcement matting along the banks of Stream B and C. The proposed impacts are intended
to reduce erosion, and reduce pollutant loading from the farm yard, thereby improving the quality
of downstream waters.
Proposed Impacts to jurisdictional Waters
Proposed permanent impacts under NWP No. 39 will total approximately 90 linear feet (0.006 acre)
of Unimportant Intermittent Stream B and approximately 30 linear feet (0.001 acre) of Unimportant
Intermittent Stream C. Impacts will result from the relocation and filling of 90 linear feet of Stream
B and 30 linear feet of Stream C. New channel sections are being designed with a two to four foot
bottom width and 3:1 side slopes. In addition approximately 0.06 acre of Wetland AA, 44 linear
feet of Stream B, and 24 linear feet of Stream C will be temporarily impacted to accommodate the
construction of the new channel (Attachment H - Figure 4). These temporary impacts include bank
6
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements June 7, 2004
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Application Project No. 2004-0636
reshaping and stabilization. This project also proposes the replacement of approximately 10 linear
feet of rip rap associated with a pipe outfall (Attachment H - Figure 5). This work will be done
under NWP 3 and is under the notification threshold.
On behalf of CSWS, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification application with
attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 13, and pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 39 (Attachment B).
I Compensatory Mitigation
' Given the limited nature of the proposed impacts and the overall improvement to water quality,
no mitigation is being proposed at this time. This project will result in a net increase of
' approximately 66 linear feet of stream channel. Existing streams will be stabilized to further
reduce sedimentation to downstream waters.
7
i {I\ •l
• ?? ??_ +J . _ ?,. -. I ? ! ? r, lr=\ f ? ,r.!/'?'? > `fit\\, ;? `,i? t? ti ,?8tr?.
NE W,
Cm ?i??f'Iep Via. - ?, 1 `v _.:? ._ • a' :S_ r?-i? ?ff .? _, ?
Alt Bt tf? w w t v'' ?' - }r' r p
, 13
?93
? ?? ., ° t oft'' ?. 1 .k, y irr "• ,, ? ..
?Y Austin Dnve C? r L 1
az.
' _ -111
?1
r'? w• / o
Ail,
.? V ? 1. ??r ?? ? . • lA '?? f ? ? a i??' ? ? ??
sL ? 1-
/ { / ??` " i"` • •{ Old COnCOrd Road '
zt \ Dawn Circle t I•'J"1AorL
ti4? ,,.% / tb? .r ? t? ? i \• .•?_.!!, `x.78° - "?, -. ? 'r??fl<<_? % ,
3Jr ?• V ! 1j t ..?? j North Tryon Street
O'J
v7 r t_ • ? - /r ?? lilt ?NSF??? ? ?? ?, r
z J= '\` ,, ,. ° ,It $?tfrr+ood sen?
x,
A roximate Scale 1" = 2000'
Reference: ee: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Derita, Nonh Carolina, dated 19%.
Carolina Wetland Services Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
' 5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230 Hidden Valley NIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217 Charlotte, North Carolina
' it CWS Project No. 2003-0407
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE
K-V- ?//A /py G 4. A If • 14 • QI

5

Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
Reference: Mecklenburg County Soil Survey, Sheet No. 4, dated 1980.
Carolina Wetland Services
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Figure 2.
Hidden Valley NIP - A
Charle
CWS Pr
)oj?- I /?a/oar 1 /9 C"i
WS Soil Survey
n Drive Drainage Improvements
North Carolina
A No. 2003-0407
,TE
?I Ii
NOTE JLRISDHCrIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DEUNEATEO BY CVROUNA --
i
WERA7D SERVICES (GWS) ON JULY 12,20M. JURISDICTIONAL AREAS HAVE BEEN SURVEYED USING A HANDHELD GPS UNIT WrrH SIRMErERACCURACY.
S -- __-
_ rmittent _
\? -=---- ----_ = °? -0.01 Acre O
- - CP3
WetCand AA
,O Strea C
1.54 Acres
j •DP2 : j imports t nU
Note- J risdictional F 0?;
0.0, cre
Char n I C Non-Jurisdiction 4
O
' -
Uni m ' t? ter
- -- -- O
Strea 01 acr ;
Pond A 390 linear fee U impo ermittent/P

ittent
t
1.33 Acres reak P
O? 0
(0.15 a site) 0
?. v
LhUhNU
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM CHANNEL
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREA
(s--' JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER AREA
\?r
----- NON-JURISDICTIONAL STREAM CHANNEL
•DP1 DATA POINT
*SCP1 STREAM CLASSIFICATION POINT
W PHOTO LOCATION AND DIRECTION
GRAPHIC SCALE
o' 100 200'
p' 100' 200'
o =
o
1° = 100- 0' 4/7/2004 Figure 3
Wetland Boundary Survey

o + n Carolina Wollmd $CIYICl3
f a 5000 Nations Crossing Rd, Suite 230
*;
Charloue
North Carolina 28217

KJK .

Hidden Valley NIP -Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
Charlott
th C
li
N ,
6
,
Phm :(7()4) 517-1177 F= [phone]

2003-0407

GCA aro
e,
or
na ,

7

Office Use Only: ((?? Forn Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ Qo4 09 2 0
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.

1. Processing
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:
Nationwide Permit No. 39, Water Quality Certification No. 3402
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: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: City of Charlotte Stonn Water Services, Contact: Mr. Jarrod J. Karl
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: jkarl(a),ci.charlotte. 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

Pagel of S
' III. Project Information
' 1. Name of project: Hidden Valley NIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 0892130, 08921201
' 4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Charlotte, take Tryon Street
north approximately five miles to Austin Drive. Turn left onto Austin Drive The site is
' located approximately 500 feet from the intersection of North
Tryon Street and Austin Drive.
' 5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N350 15' 60" - W800 46' 18"
(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
existing project area is comprised mostly of single-family residences with maintained lawns
1 7. Property size (acres): Approximately 5 acres
' 8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Little Sugar Creek
9. River Basin: Catawba River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
' 10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of this project is to make storm
drainage improvements within an existing residential area. CSWS has received several
complaints from neighborhood residents regarding standing water, erosion and residential
' flooding. This project is intended to alleviate channel erosion and flooding by improving the
capacity of the existing storm drainage system. A secondary goal of this project is to
improve water quality by removing storm flows from a highly degraded channel that runs
' through an unvegetated farm yard. The farm yard is heavily used by livestock and
contributes significant sediment and pollutants to downstream waters during storm events
' 11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: A trackhoe and typical
excavation equipment will be used for this project.
I 12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The land use surrounding the project is
mainly residential.
1
I Page 2 of 8
I

IV. Prior Project History
I V.
Storm drainage infrastructure was previously installed in this area. This project proposes to
replace and upgrade portions of the existing storm drainage system.
Future Project Plans
There are no future project plans for this site.
' VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
1. Wetland Impacts

I

I

Wetland Impact Located within
Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Area of Impact

(acres) 100-year
k*
Floodplain
Nearest Stream
Type of Wetland***
indicate on ma
( P) (yes/no) (linear feet)
Wetland AA Temporary 0.06 No Approximately Forested
2000 if

List eacn impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but arc not hmited 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 tloodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at littp://www.l'cinai 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.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 1.54 acre
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.06
Page 3 of 8

1 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 ma) (linear feet) Before Impact (please specify)
Stream B Backfill for if
90 Unnamed Tributary to
2 Unimportant
channel relocation Little Sugar Creek Intermittent
Reshape/Redefine
and line with

Stream B
Erosion Control
44 if Unnamed Tributary to
2 Unimportant

Matting Little Sugar Creek Intermittent
(Temporary)
Stream C Backfill for 30 If Unnamed Tributary to 2, Unimportant
channel relocation Little Sugar Creek Intermittent
Reshape/Redefine

Stream C and line with
Erosion Control
24 If Unnamed Tributary to
2 Unimportant

Matting Little Sugar Creek Intermittent
(Temporary)
* List each impact separately and identify 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
w4vw.us,S.gov. 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: Permanent: 120 linear feet
' Temporary: 68 linear feet
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S. N/A

Open Water Impact Area of
Name
Wat Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact le)
applicable)
(if (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres)
bay, ocean, etc.)

N/A
* List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, 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): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
' Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Page 4 of 8
1

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:
Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Under the proposed plan, all of Stream A (Unimportant Intermittent and
Perennial), most of Unimportant Intermittent Stream C, and most of Wetland AA will be
' avoided. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will also be used to minimize
disturbance to downstream waters. In order to stabilize the relocated channel construction
will include installation of grassed turf reinforcement matting along the banks of Stream B
and C. The proposed impacts are intended to reduce erosion, and reduce pollutant loading
from the farm yard, thereby improving the quality of downstream waters.
1 VIII. Mitigation
Given the limited nature of the proposed impacts and the overall improvement to water quality, no
mitigation is being proposed at this time. This project will result in a net increase of approximately
linear feet of stream channel. Existing streams will be stabilized to further reduce sedimentation to
downstream waters.
1. 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
I 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 littp.,,,"/h2q.enr.state.nc.us/wm/`index.itiii. 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): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Page 5 of 8
' 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
' 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 6 of 8
I 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
(Neuse), 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. N/A
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Gone I extends out .9U teet perpendicular trom near bank of channel; Lone 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.
XI. 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
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.
N/A
' Page 7 of 8

XII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
' Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIII. 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).
' Construction is scheduled to begin immediately following receipt of the appropriate permits

1

Ap ant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Hidden Valley NIP - Austin Dr. Drainage Improvements Date: 07/10/03
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Storm Water Services County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): KJK. TLB State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DPI
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1. Acer rubrum Stratum
tree Indicator
FAC Dominant Plant S eo cies
9. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Stratum
tree In i
FACW
2. Cephalanthus occidentalis shrub OBL 10. Rosa multii loria vine UPL
3. Cornus amomum shrub FACW 11. Impatiens capensis herb FACW
4. Boehmeria cylindrica herb FACW 12.
5. Polygonum punctatum herb FACW 13.
6. Salix nigra tree OBL 14.
7. Alnusserrulata tree FACW 15.
8. Smilax rotundifolia vine FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
91%
Remarks:
More than 50% of dominant ve
getation is FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
- Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs
- Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-12" (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) X Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0" (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators are present.
Routine On-Site Data Form Page I of 2 4/12/2004
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Helena s and. l? oam Drainage Class mod, well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic A uic H ult Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile D i n.
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10YR 4/1 N/A N/A silt loam
2-12 B 5Y 4/1 2.5YR 5/8 Abundant sand, loam oam
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfdic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
_ Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hvdric s oil indicators are p resent.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? AYe No (Circle
Wetland Hydrology Present? No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Routine On-Site Data Form Page 2 of 2 4/12/2004
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Hidden Valley NIP - Austin Dr. Drainage Improvements Date: 07/10/03
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Storm Water Services County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): KJK, TLB State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP2
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies
1. Toxicodendron radicanr Stratum
vine Indicato r
FAC Dominant Plant S ep ties Stratum Indicator
9.
2. Celtis laevigata tree FACW 10.
3. Pinus echinata tree 11.
4. Liquidambar sryraci lua tree FAC 12.
5. Smilax rotundi/blia vine FAC 13.
6. Ligustrum sinese shrub FAC 14.
7. Parthenocissus quinquefolia vine FAC 15.
8. Quercus alba tree FACU 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
86°°
Remarks:
More than 50% of dominant veg
etation is
FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
- Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs
- Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
- Inundated
- Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: - Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
- Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) - Water-Stained Leaves
- Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12" (in.) - FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators are n ot present.
Routine On-Site Data Form Page 1 Of 2 4/12/2004
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cecil-urban land development, 8-15% slopes Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T iC a ludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile D i i n.
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12" B 10YR 6/8 N/A N/A silt loam
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
- Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric soil indicators are not present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine On-Site Data Form Page 2 Of 2 4/12/2004
NCDWO Stream Classification Form SCPI - Unimportant Intermittent Stream A- Upstream of Wetland AA - At Farm
' Project Name: Hidden Valley NIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements River Basin: Catawba County: Mecklenburg Evaluator(s): KJK
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Little Sugar Creek Signature(s):
Date: 7/15/03 USGS QUAD: Derita Longitude: W 80° 46' 18" Latitude: N 35° 15' 60"
Location/Directions: From Charlotte, take Tryon Street north approximately five miles to Austin Drive. Turn left onto Austin Drive. The site is located
approximately 500 feet from the intersection of North Trvon Street and Austin Drive.
I *PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the beet professional judgement of the evaluator, the
feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? ® 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Sunounding Terrain? 0 2 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? ® 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 a 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
' PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS. 1
III. Blolopy_ Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 l 0
3 Is Per h ton Present? 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 1 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent
Weak
Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? ® 0.5 l 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 0.5 15
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 fil 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 2
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1® l 0.5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 H 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 0©. 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In 09 Above Skin This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 0®. 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydrie Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes 1. No=0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 5

1 Are Fish Present? AU.1Cnl -Call
0.5 lvtouer.¢e Strong
1 1.5
2 Are Amphibians Present? 0.5 l 1.5
3 Are A uaticTurtles Present? 0.5 1 1.5
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0.5 1 1.5
5 Are Macrobenthos Present? 0.5 1 1.5
6 Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0.5
I 1 1.5
7 Is Filamentous Algae Present? EEE 0.5 I 1.5
' 8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE. 1J'Total Absence Q1 All Plants lit Streambed 2 1 0.75 0.5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SA VPresent*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 0.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)= 18.5 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
(*NOTE._II'Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score -0
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo May And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 NoA
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 6
NCDWO Stream Classification Form SCP2 - Perennial Stream A
Project Name: Hidden Valley NIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements River Basin: Catawba County: Mecklenburg Evaluator(s): KJK, TLB
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Little Sugar Creek Signature(s): p07V-
Date: 7/10/03 USGS QUAD: Derita Longitude: W 80° 46' 18" Latitude: N 35° 15' 60"
Location/Directions: From Charlotte, take Tryon Street north approximately five miles to Austin Drive Turn left onto Austin Drive The site is located
approximately 500 feet from the intersection of North Tryon Street and Austin Drive.
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the hest pmfessional judgement of the evaluator, the
feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream---this rating system should not he used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
0
?I
2
3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? ® 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodolain Present?
0
1
®
3
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 T 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 2 3
(*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Dilching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo May And/Or In Field) Present? Yes--3 No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 12
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 2
trt. otology
1 Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? Assent Weak Moderate Strong
2 1 0
2 Are Rooted Plants Present In StreambeV 2 1 0
3 Is Perih ton Present? 1 2 3

4) Are Bivalves Present? _
1 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS., 6
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 1
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed?
1®
1
0.5
0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 0.5 N 15
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0®. 1 15
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 His. Since
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: If'Ditch Indicated /n #9 Above Skip 0
This Step And #5 Below*) 0.5 Ql 1.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry
Conditions Or In Growing Season)? 0 0.5 Ql 1.5
6) Are Hvdr c Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)'? Yes 1. No=O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 6.5

1 Are Fish Present? r?usent -ca.
0.5 ivtooerate Jlrene
1 1.5
2 Are Amphibians Present? _
0.5 1 1.5
3 Are A uaticTurtles Present? 0.5 1 1.5
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0.5 1 1.5
5 Are Macrobenthos Present? 0.5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 0.5 II 1.5
' 7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? ® 0.5 1 15
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* [VOTE: !/'Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 0.75 0.5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Steo UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 1,75
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary= 29.25 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
NCDWO Stream Classification Form SCP3 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream B
Project Name: Hidden Valley NIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements River Basin: Catawba County: Mecklenburg Evaluator(s): KJK
' DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Little Sugar Creek Signature(s):
Date: 7/15/03 USGS QUAD: Derita Longitude: W 80°46' 18" Latitude: N 35° 15' 60"
Location/Directions: From Charlotte, take Tryon Street north approximately five miles to Austin Drive. Turn left onto Austin Drive. The site is located
approximately 500 feet from the intersection of North Tryon Street and Austin Drive.
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this farm is not necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the
feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 ®1 2 3
' 2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 ® 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? IN 1 2 3
' 5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present?
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? ® 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 0
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
21 Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
3 Is Peri h ton Present? 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? l 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 2
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology

Absent

Weak

Moderate

Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? ® 0.5 1 15
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 0.5 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way?
0
1
1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 1.5
H. Hydrology Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
' 1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leallitter
Present In Streambed?
1.5
1
0.5
0
2 Is Sediment On Plants Or Debris Present? 0 0. 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0. 1 1.5
41 Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since
Last Known Rain? MOTE: U'Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip H
This Step And #5 Below*) 0.5 1 1.5
'
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
0.5
1 -
1.5
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut )? Yes 1. No=0
M SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 3.5
n'TT
1 Are Fish Present? Ausent "CUK
0.5 ivtouerate Jtrong
l 1.5
2 Are Am hibians Present? 0.5 1 1.5
3 Are A uaticTurtles Present? 0.5 1 1.5
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0.5 I 1.5
5 Are Macrobenthos Present? 0.5 1 1.5
6 Are Iron Oxidizing BacteriaiFun >us Present? 0.5 1 1.5
7 Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0.5 1 1.5
' 3) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Tolal Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 0.75 0.5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Steo UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 0.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondarv)= 16.5 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
(*NOTE: !(Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tovo Mau And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No fM
PRIALARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 9
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form SCP4 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream C
Project Name: Hidden Valley NIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements River Basin: Catawba County: Mecklenburg Evaluator(s): KJK
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Little Sugar Creek Signature(s): KTZ,
Date: 4/21/04 USGS QUAD: Derita Longitude: W 80° 46' 18" Latitude: N 35° 15' 60"
Location/Directions: From Charlotte, take Tryon Street north approximately five miles to Austin Drive. Turn let{ onto Austin Drive. The site is located
approximately 500 feet from the intersection of North Trvon Street and Austin Drive.
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the
feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used`
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 ® 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? ® 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 51 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 1
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 I 1 15
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 2.5
11. _ Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
?VHY
1 Are Fish Present? Absent yreaK
0.5 moperate wrong
1 1.5
2 Are Amphibians Present? 0.5 1 1.5
3 Are A uaticTurtles Present? 0.5 1 1.5
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0.5 1 1.5
5 Are Macrobenthos Present? 0.5 1 1.5
6 Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fun us Present'? 0.5 1 1.5
7 Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0.5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 0.75 0.5 0 0
As Noted Above Skiv This Steo UNLESS SAV Present-).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 0.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Secondary)= 22 _(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
(*NOTE: 11'Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=O*)
10) Is A 2id Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No--9f
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 9
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 4
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: U'Ditch Indicated fit H9 Above Skip This Step And NS Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0.5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes 1. No=0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS. 5
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream A

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Y
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services 2. Evaluator's Name: Kip Kerecman
3. Date of Evaluation: 04/06/04
4. Time of Evaluation
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary to Little Sugar 6. River Basin: Catawba River
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 15 Acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 235 LF
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte, take Tryon Street north approximatel
five miles to Austin Drive. Turn left onto Austin Drive. The site is located approximately 500 feet from the intersection of North
Tryon Street and Austin Drive.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): W 80°46' 18 N 35° 15' 60"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: No rain within 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 60' and sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YEcn 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 80 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 20 % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 1-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
' characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 18 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date t? G C?5?'
om'/
This channel evaluation fdrntended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply-a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
S
CORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(no flow or saturation = 0-, strong flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 5
0-5
0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone,
0 6
0-4
0-5
0
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer= max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient orchemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0_3
0-4
0-4'
3
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
`
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
b-2
2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) -
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 - 0-4 0
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
(fine, homogenous = 0, large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0
5
0
4
0
S
1
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks= max points) - - -

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
w (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0--5
1
(no visible roots = O; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0
5
0
4
0
5
0
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) - - -

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0_6
1
(no riffles/tipples or pools = 0; well-developed= max points)
Q
1 7
Habitat complexity
0
6-
0-6
0-6
1
(little or no habitat= 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) -
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0- 5 1
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness V 1 ° 0 4 0- 4 0
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
(no evidence= 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O'
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence= max points)
Total Paints Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first pa?c) 18
I l llese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 - Perennial Stream A
I

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services 2. Evaluator's Name: Kip Kerecman
3. Date of Evaluation: 04/06/04 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary to Little Sugar 6. River Basin: Catawba River
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 15 Acres
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 390 LF 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte, take Tryon Street north approximately
five miles to Austin Drive. Turn left onto Austin Drive. The site is located approximately 500 feet from the intersection of North
Tryon Street and Austin Drive.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): W 80° 46' 18" N 35° 15' 60"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: No rain within 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 60° and sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map`? YEcr 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 50 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 25 % Agricultural
25% Forested '%o Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 2-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
' characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
' reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 48 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
8. Stream Order: First
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
. SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent poolsin stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)

? Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(extensive alteration= 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0
0 4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges= max points)
Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0-4 ' 2
(no discharge = 0; springs; seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
(no floodplain = O; extensive floodplain.= max points)
Entrenchment / floodplam access 0- S 0 4 0- 2 3
a (deeply entrenched= 0; frequent flooding=max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 4
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization O; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0--4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0, little or no sediment - max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
(fine, homogenous = O; large, diverse sizes - max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0 -4 0 - 5 3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed' & banks= max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
.4 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks - max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
(no visible roots = O; dense roots throughout - max points) ,

l5 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) - - -
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
(no riffles/tipples or pools = O; well-developed = max points)
Q 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
(little or no habitat = O; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

is Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 -5
0 - 5
3
(no shading vegetation = O; continuous canopy - max points)
x 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

2Q Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 - 5
0 - 5
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0--4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
V Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = O; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first paged 48
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

I
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP3 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream B
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services 2. Evaluator's Name: Kip Kerecman
3. Date of Evaluation: 04/06/04 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary to Little Sugar Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 11 Acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 248 LF 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte, take Tryon Street north approximately
five miles to Austin Drive. Turn left onto Austin Drive. The site is located approximately 500 feet from the intersection of North
Tryon Street and Austin Drive.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): W 80°46' 18" N 35° 15' 60"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: No rain within 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 60° and sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YEC!? 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 100% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 2-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
' reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 29 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ???? Date
This channel evaluation form intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners anenvironmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

##
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
R
SCO
E
Coastal Piedmont- Mountain.

I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 -5
0-4
0-5
0
(no flow or saturation= 0; strong flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 5
0 - 5
2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration -= max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0 4
0-5
2
(no buffer = 0, contiguous, wide buffer= max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0' 4
0-4
1
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
Q (no- discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)_
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
y (no floodplam = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
F.d Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
1
(deeply entrenched= 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0--4 0-2 1
(no wetlands= 0; large adjacent wetlands =max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization= 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment= max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
7- (deeply incised = O; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
E- (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 0
(no riffles/ripplesor pools= 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness- A* 0- 4 0- 4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure= max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O (no evidence = 0; common-, numerous types = max points)
*4
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = Max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ". 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 29
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #

SCP4 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream C
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services 2. Evaluator's Name: Kip Kerecman
3. Date of Evaluation: 04/21/04 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary to Little Sugar Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 10 Acres
6. River Basin: Catawba
8. Stream Order:
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 150 LF 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte, take Tryon Street north approximate
five miles to Austin Drive. Turn left onto Austin Drive. The site is located annroximately 500 feet from the intersection of North
Tryon Street and Austin Drive.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): W 80°46' 18" N 35° 15' 60"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: No rain within 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 80° and sunn
' 16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
' 17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YEcn 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
' 20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 100% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other (
21. Bankfull Width: 2-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-4'
' 23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
I Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
' characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
' highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 28 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature /? Date
This channel evaluation f8rnyrs intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners fnd enfironmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

- #
CHARACTERISTICS.
. ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
..: Coastal'. Piedmont. Mountain

1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(no floworsaturation = 0; strong. flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(extensive alteration= 0; no alteration= max points)
3 Riparianzone 0-6 0 4 0-5 2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
(extensive discharges = 0, no discharges = max points)
,.?
5' Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
00 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 1
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
a" Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 2
0 1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding=max points) -

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
0 6
0-4
0-2
3
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= O; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
t2 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks - max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0_4
0-5
4
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence= max points) - - -
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0
5 0
6 1
(no riffles/ripples or pools= 0; well-developed = max points) - -

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
1 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 1
(no shading vegetation - 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0- 4
0= 4
0
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0 5
0
(no evidence= O; common, numerous types= max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
0 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
*4
0
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
?-1 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 28
* 1 hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
I
I
I
1
1
1
- 1
r
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
June.7, 2004
I

Photograph A. View of Unimportant Intermittent Stream A
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
June 7,
Proiect No. 2004•
ii

Photograph D. View of Pond A
Hidden Valley CIP - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements June 7, 2004
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Aualication Proiect No. 2004-0636
11 11

y e_
r a #'
tdt ?4i a ? i
r ??1'S Y
?..,
a ' Fr ?f
r
pad ,?., t ! r r,.
a 1 ? S 1?pytil,?jl? t? v'. ?????'??ft? l? t?lF'?f `4
r%
111

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
June 1, 2004
Mr. Kip Kerecman
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, NC 28217
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: Drainage Improvements - Hidden Valley CIP; Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
CWS Project No. 2004-0636
Dear Mr. Kerecman:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do not
show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean
that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of
Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if
the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<<vww.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
' HEL/hel
' 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One
Phone: [phone] • FAX: [phone] - Internet: www.enr.state.nc:us NorthCarolina
An Equal Opportunity , Affirmative Action Employer- 50 °'a Recycled • 10 % Post Consumer Paper Natumlly

i
i

C
DETAIL 2
STANDARD BASE CHANNEL
(Not to scale)
_ Natural __ Natural
Ground _
dy -1 3;4 Ground
D
i
Erosion Control Min. D = 1.9 FL
Matting -B_ B= 2.0 Ft.
TSf 7
DETAIL 3
STANDARD BASE CHANNEL
(Not to Scale)
Natural Natural
Ground 3y 1 n;? Ground
?1 D --
Erosion Control Min. D = 2.2 Ft.
Matting _ B = 2.0 Ft.
NCDOTStd. 876
Type ofLl'ner= Grassed
DETAIL 5
i
STANDARD BASE CHANNEL
(Not to Scale)
_ Natural Natural
Ground I?7 I D -. Ground
I, Erosion Control Min. D = 1.25 Ft
NCDOTSt?d.876 B= 2.0 Ff.
it I
Type of Liner= Grassed
SYSTEM 2, STA. 10+00 TO STA. 10+44 SYSTEM 2, STA. 10+44 TO STA 11+34 SYSTEM 2 STA 11+34 TO STA 12+10 SYS 0 TO STA
- ? NCDO tl. 8 6
j
? 7ype of Liner= Grassed
- --r - r- sue- A _\ - -
T
?U'S TIr
TEM 3, STA. 10+0 .10+24
r
1 0 SEE SHEET 19 FROM HIDDEN VALLEY
0
UU e. PLAN REGARDING PIPE INST&LATION U I?
AND END TREATMENT f u s U

REFER TO HIDDEN VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT
CONSTRUCTION PLANS-SHEETS 18, 19 AND 20 FOR
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, UTILITY RELOCATIONS
AND ADDITIONAL PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

SYSTEM 2, STA. 11+34.00
PROP. INV. 766. 10, SEE DETAIL 4
?; y ' SYSTEM 2, STA. 10+44.00
As { `? PROP. INV. 767.40, SEE DETAIL 3 3 -
- 61' ? SYSTEM 2, STA. 10+80.00 flBA KINHi
dy Aj 7686 RLEY
DETAIL 4
STANDARD BASE CHANNEL
(Not to Scale)
Natural _ Natural
Ground 17'7 9;1 D Ground
r
Erosion g Control f B Min. D= 2.75 Ft.
Matting
NCDOTSM.876 B= 40 Ft.
Type of Liner = Grassed
T

NWP NO. 39 e5C316&PG591
?a STREAM £ PARCEL 1D o8921225C 3i7
rr 44 LINEAR FEET IMPACTED
NWP NO- 7-9 (TEMPORARY)
STREAM C -__-
30 LINEAR FEET IMPAC?E-
/ e M; 4
NWP N0. 39
NA wAL
M
AND JEFF NOPKINS _
De 864 IHO855NS
PARCEL p PC 315 M8 5 '8921,226 5) PROP. IN V. 100. 0=OL:TAIL'5 PA U8 5 PPG 438
e . - - SYSTEM 2, STA. 11+34.00 = RCE( ?0'e zlz;?a
j / - BEGIN SYSTEM 3, STA. 10+00.00
APPROXIMATE SCALE 1'=40'
- ` P. IN V. 766.10. SE
PRO
E DETAI
i - - 4 Carolina Wetand Services
JvJ 7EV,?" END SYSTEM 3, STA. 10+24 00;
3 °1a 5000 Nations Crossing Road Suite 230
3? G ; PROP. INV. 766.84, SEE DETAIL 5 r , a ++o ri +t r . r ')o'l 1-7
PROP INV. 765.0'
END SYSTEM 2, STA. 12±30:00
OUTFALL = BEGIN SYSTEM 2, STA. 10+00.00
N-556,989.97 E 1, 471, 510.30 2`
PROP. INV. 769.34, SEE DETAIL 2 LISA KING
M 08 A SMRLEY
AUSTIN FARM
NOTE: ALL UNITS IN FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
PLANS PREPARED BY
RSBH ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS-PLANNERS AR INC.
RSW, CHARLOTTE, NORTH ORTH CAROLINA A
CORPORATE CERTIFICATE NO. F-0493
?SYSTENI2, STA. 12+10.0,0,
PROP. INV. 765.10 -
TRANSITION AREA
TRANSITION AREA, STREAM C
NO CHANNEL LINING / F1? 24 LINEAR FEET IMPACTED
REQ'D IN THIS AREA
NWP N0.39 (TEMPORARY)

STREAM B
-- 90 LINEAR FEET ]MPACTED
(Uh WORK ORDER
Q1mL0m-
SYS?EM 2 LAYOUT
is c,
- s `_ - b B
i -_

-_i I0

6' 'LST
?? ?' ? Lid FTC r;l v e

°'
-- ' Drives -
t
- in
Aus
o

I

1
1
1
1
1
1
Al.
SYSTEM 7 ?? ?? ;?•',,..
SYSMNT
?? ? I ^?? j/' --- - 'I? ? 1? ? ??. >"' ?" ? ?.?•I P;ga°o ,?t? oE?o?"r ? A?p41???E??'?o
STREAM C -
10 LINEAR FEET IMPACTED
NWP NO. 3 (TEMPORARY) JEAN°oF v
' ? ??? ? of rt ? eU V ? `w ?A' , A j'• pP
" 01
v
t d
02
?- - !i ;A
e
w s °nrar
o???? ?° APPROXIMATE SCALE 1"=80'
0
Carolina Wetland Services
- a- 5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
y ? o
\
?;bo Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
r ?
LEGEND f?.
11 REFERENCES. CONSTRUCTION PLANS PROVIDED BY RS&H, DATED 2004.
JyQ
----- JURISDICTIONAL CHANNEL
T 'o _\N
Figure 5. Proposed Impacts
....... NEW STREAM ALIGNMENT V- Hidden Valle - Austin Drive Drainage Improvements
;ras?"n r _? ?`? p<? Charlotte, North Carolina
i _ CWS Pro.'ect No. 2004-0636
-WLB- SURVEYED WETLAND BOUNDARY" _ a ?f o` o? y? ?' ?
PREPAR?
JWZ }D1BY DATE CHECKED DATE
,t xmx o 1 ? '.r/ ' 'V0 1 3? ?? 7
war c [ar ''a roTMA e"x°'°? um - L „G, eos/ ?J. 11 / 0
M mica '1 yM? ,
v i y-
_
Px Stu
AUSTIN FARM
- u
Co PLETE PLANS WORK ORDER

NOTE: ALL UNITS IN FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE N07ED. C1[ RRQJECT LAYOU RLAN

%? aiw ar.a a P
WI T H CONTOURS

PLANS PREPARED BY aw,•om
. ea
- ?r 1MBYIIS f
RS3N ARCH! TECTS-ENGINEERS 01 ANNERS INC.
I E 3
NA
CHARLOTTE,NORTR CAROL
OW 3B 8
_ CORPORATE CERTIFICATE NO. F-0493
R -