20110276 Ver 1_401 Application_20110311

x
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
[phone] fax:[phone] 2 7 6
Letter of Transmittal
Sheet No.: 1 of 1
To: Date: 03/24/2011 Our Job No.: 2514331
NCDWQ
512 North Salisbury Street File Code: ? AI IM
Raleigh, NC 27604 Attention: Mr. Ian McMillan
Reference: 3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project JD and
NWP #3
?k9 R DO
MAR 2 A 2011
We Are NAttached ?Under Separate Cover via NOvernite 02nd Day ?Regular b6h'WAf0UKr0items:
Sending: WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
?Shop Drawings ?Prints ?Sepias ?Mylars ?Samples ?Change Order
?Copy of Letter ?Reports ?Specifications ?Cost Estimates ?Electronic Media
Mother: 3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project JD and NWP #3
Item Rev. Quantity Description Action Code
No.
1 5 3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project G
request for JD and NWP #3
2 1 Check No. 399845
Action Codes: A. Action Indicated on Item Transmitted C. For Your Use E. For Information Only G. For Approval
B. See Remarks- Below D. As Requested F. For Review & Comment
Remarks Mr. McMillan,
Attached, please find five copies of the 3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project NWP #3
and Request for Jurisdictional Determination submittal for approval and check No. 399845 for
$240.00.
Copies
Signed: Brandon Phillips, CHMM
an employee-owned company providing quality service since 1912
0
U

N
U

O
v? y

h
U ?+
? ? bA

N
U

?
O ?
W
C U
N b
y 7?
a

cn OC)
? a ?+ N Vl U U ?"
V It V)
o

? ? x W o M ? z o o a, ?

er' o o -? o, U o
p
,, cn
"CU?
:? I
Z

cz „? U oo

O Q
o 7:$ a
o
a. b a?
o m 3

dl
'?
b 03

00
z

w

(D
PLO
03 00

b

N M d tri r? 06 O\ .~i

0.

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
0)M' 'J ,s f1)iehead Sr:eet
C,ha t r:., PJO??h 1'.ar:al!na 82i)
04 3 2 1885 1az (70-113 7J 33a:.?
March 21, 2011
Via FEDERAL EXPRESS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Ms. Amanda Jones
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 3
Proposed 3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Jones:
In cooperation with STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates (STV/RWA), Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services (CSWS) is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) application
form (Attachment A) in accordance with General Condition No. 27 and pursuant to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number 3-Maintenance
(Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 10; updated March 19, 2007). A Request for Jurisdictional
Determination regarding the approximate location and extent of jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
within the project area, including a Request for Jurisdictional Determination form, figures,
photographs, USACE and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream
Assessment Data forms, Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form, and Routine
Wetland Determination Data Form is found in Attachment B. Accompanying figures and permit
drawing are included in Attachment C.
Project Description/Purpose and Need
The project area encompasses approximately 0.22 acre of a portion of two residential, single-
family dwelling back yards adjacent to Litchfield Road. The site is bounded by Litchfield Road to
the east, Richland Drive to the north, Yoruk Forest Lane to the west and a residential dwelling to
the south in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County (See Attachment C - Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4).
The project area is located in the back yards of two houses along a shared property line where
an unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek is located. The unnamed tributary (Stream A) and the
project area runs perpendicular to Litchfield Road. The contributing watershed is almost fully
developed with single-family and multi-family residential dwellings. The majority of the unnamed
tributary (Stream A) is contained within a closed stormwater conveyance system with the
exception of the exposed stream segment at the pipe outlet, just west of Litchfield Road.
an employee-owned company providing quality service since 1912
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
The existing stormwater conveyance system located upstream of Stream A is proposed to be
improved by CSWS under a Nationwide Permit #3. The upstream pipe system is under-sized
and needs to be replaced. In addition, the downstream outlet channel exhibits erosion and is
located within close proximity to the two residential dwellings located at 3800 and 3808
Litchfield Road. As part of the upstream pipe replacement work, this project proposes to extend
the pipe by 20 feet to better align with the outlet channel to reduce erosion and to extend the
discharge point beyond the nearby structures. There will also be a 30 linear foot riprap apron at
the outfall to dissipate flows. There will be no impacts to the downstream unnamed tributary that
runs behind the homes (Attachment C - Figure 4).
This stormwater drainage improvement measure would result in permanent impacts to
approximately 50 linear feet (250 square feet/0.006 acre) of the on-site perennial relatively
permanent water (RPW). Perennial RPW Stream A is a jurisdictional stream that enters the
project area at the stormwater conveyance outfall in the back yard of the residential dwellings
located at 3800 and 3808 Litchfield Road and was concluded to be perennial and aquatically
important in function. Waters of the U.S. within the project area and project impacts are further
described below.
Background
As noted on aerial photography (2009) viewed on the Mecklenburg County GIS and verified by
field review, the project area is currently developed as a residential development in an urban
setting. Perennial RPW Stream A is located in the undeveloped area situated in the back yards
of the single-family residential dwellings. The project area is gently sloping along the drainage
corridor. Stormwater enters the project area from a stormwater discharge pipe that drains into
the perennial stream, after being collected from roadways and impervious surfaces located
outside of the project area.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project area, as described below, are limited to the
one jurisdictional, perennial stream (See Attachment B - Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary
Field Map). The Request for Jurisdictional Determination form to the USACE is found in
Attachment B. Representative photographs of the project area are also found in Attachment B.
Prior to fieldwork, the following references were reviewed to identify possible waters of the U.S.,
including wetland areas:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quad Charlotte East. NC
(1997)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) On-line Wetlands
Mapper (http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey
of Mecklenburg County, NC, (1980) Sheet 7 of 13
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), NRCS Soil Series Data.
Mecklenburg County, NC (2002)
• List of Hydric Soils of North Carolina, prepared by the USDA (1995)
• Mecklenburg County Property Ownership Land Records Information System
(POLARIS)
Page 2
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
The USGS topographic quad does not depict the on-site stream within the project area. The
NWI map does not depict any potential jurisdictional features within the project area. The USDA
SCS soils map does not depict the on-site stream within the project area and depicts the
following soil within the project area (Attachment C - Figure 3):
• CuB - Cecil-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Cecil soil types are classified as well-drained. The POLARIS map depicts the on-site stream
(Perennial RPW Stream A) within the project area.
Methods
On March 11, 2011, STWRWA Senior Environmental Specialist Brandon Phillips, C.H.M.M. and
Environmental Scientist Tony Nardo field reviewed the project area for potential jurisdictional
waters of the U.S, including wetlands, and potential protected species habitat. Jurisdictional
waters are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(b) and protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). The boundaries of the potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were
estimated in the field based on the ordinary high water mark. The USACE and NCDWQ Stream
Assessment Data Forms for Perennial RPW Stream A are included in Attachment B.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. located within the project area are limited to the one perennial
stream (Perennial RPW Stream A); reference Attachment B - Approximate Jurisdictional
Boundary Field Map for the approximate location of this jurisdictional feature. The jurisdictional
boundaries of Perennial RPW Stream A have not yet been field verified by the USACE Asheville
Regulatory Field Office. The perennial stream is approximately 80 feet long and 5 feet wide
within the project area (400 sq. ft./0.01 acre). A Request for Jurisdictional Determination is
included as Attachment B. Perennial RPW Stream A drains from the northeast to the southwest,
from the stormwater conveyance pipe that is located under Litchfield Road to the pipe outlet in
the residential back yards at 3800 and 3808 Litchfield Road. Stream A begins at the stormwater
discharge pipe within the project area (Attachment B - Photograph 1) and extends southwest to
an unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek (Perennial RPW) and ultimately into McMullen Creek
(Perennial RPW). McMullen Creek (Perennial RPW), in turn, drains to McAlpine Creek
(Perennial RPW), which drains to Sugar Creek (Perennial RPW) which drains to the Catawba
River, a traditional navigable water (TNW).
Perennial RPW Stream A, a tributary to an unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek, originates
within the project area at the stormwater pipe outfall. Perennial RPW Stream A exhibited a well-
defined bed and bank, an ordinary high water mark, had flowing and standing water, and
depositional banks. Representative photographs of Perennial RPW Stream A are included in
Attachment B - Photographs 2, 3 and 4.
More information on stream characteristics associated with Perennial RPW Stream A can be
found on the USACE and NCDWQ Stream Assessment Data Forms included in Attachment B.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form is also included in Attachment B.
Page 3
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
The project involves improvements to an existing stormwater conveyance system in an urban
setting. Proposed upgrades to the existing stormwater conveyance system will include the 20-
foot long extension of the existing RCP. The placement of the 20-foot long pipe extension with a
30 linear foot riprap apron at the outlet will result in permanent impacts to approximately 50
linear feet (250 sq. ft./0.006 acre) of Perennial RPW Stream A.
Avoidance and Minimization
Due to the nature of the project, avoiding impacts to Perennial RPW Stream A while achieving
project goals is not possible. There is not a practicable alternative that would achieve the project
purpose of providing the elimination of flooding within the residential back yards that would
avoid, or result in less adverse impact to waters of the U.S. Consideration was given during the
design phase to the use of a plunge pool in an effort to reduce the 50 linear feet of impact.
However, this design alternative was determined to be unfeasible due to the proximity of lateral
constraints (house and swimming pool) that prohibited the ability to widen the channel banks to
accommodate the plunge pool. Failing to uprize and extend the existing pipe system would
contribute to localized flooding and continue to compromise the residential dwellings located at
3800 and 3808 Litchfield Road.
Best management practices (BMPs) and appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls will be
installed and maintained during construction activities to allow for the least adverse effect on the
stormwater conveyance system and associated water quality. It is anticipated that a temporary
pump around operation would be used within the stormwater conveyance system during
construction that would be completely removed when work is completed.
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to follow the
General Conditions of the USACE Nationwide Permits (Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 10;
updated March 19, 2007), applicable USACE Wilmington District Regional Conditions, and
applicable NCDWQ consistency conditions (November 2007).
Compensatory Mitigation
As described above, efforts have been made to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the
U.S. to the maximum extent practicable. The extension of the existing pipe culvert will
permanently impact only an approximated 50 linear feet (250 sq. ft./0.006 acre) of Perennial
RPW Stream A (See Attachment C - Figure 4). To compensate for this loss of channel bottom,
debris and other blockages within the stream immediately downstream of the pipe extension will
be removed. Debris and blockage removal would be accomplished using equipment operating
outside the top of bank. No additional compensatory mitigation measures are proposed.
Stormwater Management Plan
A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) for the project will not be required due to the nature of
the project. No new impervious surfaces are proposed. Additional development as a result of
this project is not anticipated.
Page 4
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
Cultural Resources
A review of historic and archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed 3800 Litchfield Road
Maintenance Project area was conducted. The National Register was consulted and indicated
that no National Register listed sites are located within one mile of the project area. The
Mecklenburg County POLARIS web site was also reviewed and showed that there is a Charlotte
Historic Cemetery site within one mile east of the project area. Considering the limited impacts
to waters of the U.S. as a result of this project, the likelihood of unidentified cultural resources
being present in the proposed permit area is considered remote.
Protected Species
STWRWA conducted a protected species habitat assessment and review of the project site on
March 11, 2011. Prior to the field reviews, STWRWA reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases, which
provided existing data concerning the potential occurrence of federally and state protected
(threatened or endangered) species in Mecklenburg County. These databases indicate that
there are federal and state threatened or endangered species that may occur in Mecklenburg
County. These protected species, their respective physical descriptions and habitat
requirements, and the corresponding biological conclusions are provided below.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) - Federal/State Endangered
The smooth coneflower grows up to 1.5 meters tall and contains large (approximately 20
centimeters [cm] in length and 7.5 cm in width) basal leaves. The stem of the plant is smooth
with few leaves. The flower consists of rays that are light pink to purplish, usually drooping and
are five to eight cm long. This perennial plant generally occurs in basic to circumneutral soils of
meadows and woodlands. The plant, which typically blooms in June, has been found growing in
habitats that include upland oak-hickory or mixed oak-pine forests, old field habitat, transmission
line R/Ws, and roadsides. Smooth coneflower is an associate of the Piedmont Prairie
community type, often found growing with populations of Schweinitz's sunflower. This plant is
listed as a current record for Mecklenburg County, and there is one documented population
located approximately 12 miles northwest of Charlotte.
No individuals of smooth coneflower were observed within the project area. There are no
records of smooth coneflower being located in the Charlotte East USGS quadrangle. The NC
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of the
nearest populations of smooth coneflower. The NCNHP determined that no populations of
smooth coneflower were present within several miles of the project area. The project area lacks
the proper habitat requirements preferred by this species, so it is unlikely that smooth
coneflower would be found within the project area. Based on the field review, the lack of habitat
present and the available databases, it is determined that this project will have `no effect' on
smooth coneflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzih - Federal/State Endangered
Schwemitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant limited to the Piedmont counties of North
and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall from a cluster of tuberous
roots. The sunflower consists of a flower with a yellow disk and ray flowers formed on small
heads. The disc is less than 1.5 cm across and the petals are two to three cm long. The
lanceolate leaves are opposite on the lower stem and alternate near the flowers. The typical
habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission line right-of-ways (R/Ws),
Page 5
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
open areas, and edges of upland woods. Periodically maintained R/Ws are typically considered
good potential habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Major characteristics of soils associated
with suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland interstream flats or
gentle slopes, those which are clayey in texture (and often with substantial rock fragments),
those which have a high shrink-swell capacity, and those which vary over the course of the year
from very wet to very dry. Flowering occurs from August to the first frost of the year.
No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed within the project area. There are no
records of Schweinitz's sunflower being located in the Charlotte East USGS quadrangle. The
NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of the
nearest populations of Schweinitz's sunflower. The NCNHP determined that no populations of
Schweinitz's sunflower were present within several miles of the project area. The project area
lacks the proper habitat requirements preferred by this species, and there are no known
populations within the proximity of the project area, so it is unlikely that that Schweinitz's
sunflower would be found within the project area. Based on the field review, the lack of habitat
present and the available databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on
Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) - Federal/State Endangered
The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoid shaped shell. The outer surface of this species
shell is yellowish, greenish, or brownish with greenish, blackish rays. The inner shell ranges
from iridescent to mottled pale orange. The average size of the Carolina heelsplitter is 78
millimeters. The Carolina heelsplitter is found in small to large streams and rivers as well as
ponds over a variety of substrates usually near stable, well-shaded stream banks. Most
individuals are found in undercuts and along shaded banks stabilized with extensive tree roots,
a buried log, or rocks. The Carolina heelsplitter requires waterways with well oxygenated clean
water. This mollusk is listed as an historical occurrence in Mecklenburg County. Six populations
of this mussel are presently known to exist, two of which occur within North Carolina. One small
remnant population occurs in the Catawba River system in Waxhaw Creek in Union County, and
another small population occurs in a short stretch of Goose Creek, a tributary to the Rocky River
in the Pee Dee River system, also in Union County.
Potential habitat does not exist within Perennial RPW Stream A located within the project area.
No undercuts along shaded banks stabilized with extensive tree roots, buried logs, or rocks are
located within the project area. Based on the field review, the lack of habitat present and the
available databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on the Carolina
heelsplitter.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - Federal/State Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from one to three feet
in height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate
leaflets. Most plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants
with both male and female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal,
erect, dense cluster, and colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June
to July; the fruit, a red drupe, is produced through the months of August to October. Michaux's
sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. This plant reportedly
Page 6
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area. This plant is
restricted to seven counties in North Carolina, and is listed as historic in Mecklenburg County.
No individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed within the project area. There are no records
of Michaux's sumac being located in the Charlotte East USGS quadrangle. The NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of the nearest
populations of Michaux's sumac. The NCNHP determined that no current populations of
Michaux's sumac were present within several miles of the project area. The project area lacks
the proper habitat requirements preferred by this species, and there are no known populations
within the proximity of the project area, so it is unlikely that Michaux's sumac would be found
within the project area. Based on the field review, the lack of habitat present and the available
databases, it is determined that this project will have `no effect' on Michaux's sumac.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The list of protected species was reviewed, and evaluations were performed regarding the
likelihood of the presence of each species in the project area. The project area largely consists
of residential lawn, dwellings and undeveloped urban forest. Due to the habitat requirements for
the three aforementioned protected plant species, the habitat available within the project area,
and the findings of the field surrey, it is determined that the proposed project will have no effect
on any of the protected species listed for Mecklenburg County.
Closing
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] should you have any questions or concerns
regarding this request for jurisdictional determination and Nationwide Permit U. Since impacts
associated with this project exceed 40 linear feet of additional permanent stream impact at an
existing stream crossing location, a copy of this application has been forwarded to NCDWQ for
written approval. A copy has also been forwarded to the USFWS Asheville Field Office
pursuant to the final regional conditions for nationwide permits in the Wilmington District.
Sincerely,
Isaac J. Hinson, P.W.S.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services - Wetland Specialist
Attachments: Attachment A: Pre-Construction Notification Form
Attachment B: Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Attachment C: Figures
cc: Brian Cole, Asheville Field Office, USFWS
Ian McMillan, NC Division of Water Quality
IJH/bjp
Page 7
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
Attachment A
Pre-Construction Notification Form
2r`1 27C,
of WATF9
0 pG Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
-i
° DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NW P) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts. If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: 3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: City of Charlotte Y LLS95' \7 U-5
2d. Subdivision name: N/A U"

2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: MAR 2
N/A
IVAI 2011

TY
3. Owner Information WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: James and Alice Reed, and New Height Properties, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No. From Mecklenburg GIS
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: 3800 and 3808 Litchfield Road
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: City of Charlotte representative
4b. Name: Mr. Isaac Hinson, PWS
4c. Business name
(if applicable): City of Charlotte Storm Water Services
4d. Street address: 600 E. 4'h Street
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202
4f. Telephone no.: 704-336-4495
4g. Fax no.: 704-336-6586
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 15715219 and 15715218
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.18713 Longitude: - 80.78922
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: < 1 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C - McMullenCreek
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area is located in the back yards of two houses along a shared property line where an unnamed tributary to
McMullen Creek is located. The unnamed tributary (Stream A) and the project area runs perpendicular to Litchfield Road.
The contributing watershed is almost fully developed with single-family and multi-family residential dwellings. The majority
of the unnamed tributary (Stream A) is contained within a closed stormwater conveyance system with the exception of the
exposed stream segment at the pipe outlet, just west of Litchfield Road.
The existing stormwater conveyance system located upstream of Stream A is proposed to be improved by CSWS under a
Nationwide Permit U. The upstream pipe system is under-sized and needs to be replaced. In addition, the downstream
outlet channel exhibits erosion and is located within close proximity to the two residential dwellings located at 3800 and
3808 Litchfield Road. As part of the upstream pipe replacement work, this project proposes to extend the pipe by 20 feet
to better align with the outlet channel to reduce erosion and to extend the discharge point beyond the nearby structures.
There will also be a 30 linear foot riprap apron at the outfall to dissipate flows. There will be no impacts to the downstream
unnamed tributary that runs behind the homes
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
N/A
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Perennial Stream A is approximately 80 linear feet. The remainder of the project length is closed pipe system.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
This is the maintenance, replacement and extension of an existing RCP pipe system that is severely undersized based on
current design standards. The proposed project will reduce the potential flooding of the residential properties on Litchfield
Road, and reduce erosion of the stream channel.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project is upgrading an existing RCP stormwater pipe system that does not adequately convey the design storm
event. The adjacent residential buildings experience flooding because the pipe system is undersized and discharges too
close to the buildings. The existing pipe system is proposed to be upgraded with a larger pipe. Installation of the new
pipe system will require the use of a large excavator such as a track hoe. A crane system may be needed to place the
larger pipe sections. Storm water flow will be maintained during construction by pumping.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ®No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: JD Request is attached.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: STV/Ralph Whitehead
Name (if known): Brandon Phillips, C.H.M.M. Associates
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404 width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? ,
other) (feet) feet)

S1 ®P ? T Pipe installation, Unnamed
Tributary to ® PER ® Corps
5
Impacts Figure 4
McMullen Creek ? INT ® DWQ 50
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 50
3i. Comments: The houses at 3800 and 3808 Litchfield Road experience frequent flooding. In order to protect these houses
from flooding in the future, an existing stormwater RCP located between the two houses is proposed to be replaced and
extended for 20 feet within an 80-foot open channel section of a perennial stream located west of Litchfield Road and south of
Richland Drive. A 30 foot long riprap apron will be installed at the end of the proposed nine PxtPnGinn
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.

Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland

number (acres)
of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ® Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: Buffers apply only to main stem of the Catawba River.
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
During design, consideration was given to maintaining the 80-foot open channel section. Unfortunately, the flooding issue
associated with the residences at 3800 and 3808 Litchfield Road would not be solved by only replacing the existing pipe. It
was determined that the extension of the pipe was necessary to discharge the water at a lower elevation to protect the
upstream houses from future flooding in the design storm. The riprap lined apron minimizes the stream impact, and will
significantly reduce the erosion of the stream channel. Consideration was given during the design phase to the use of a
plunge pool in an effort to reduce the 50 linear feet of impact. However, this design alternative was determined to be
unfeasible due to the proximity of lateral constraints (house and swimming pool) that prohibited the ability to widen the channel
banks to accomidate the plunge pool.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan has been prepared for the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources for approval. The main method by which impacts are minimized is through a
detailed construction sequencing plan. The length of the existing pipe system that can be removed at any one time is limited.
Flows from the existing pipe system are diverted into the downstream tributary with a pump.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): [:1 DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
E] Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments: Buffer rules only apply to main stem of the Catawba River.
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments: Buffer rules apply to main stem of the Catawba River.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 1 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project is part of the improvements
for the Stormwater Management Plan for the area.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Charlotte Stormwater Services
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWO 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The project will not generate wastewater
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or Y
? es No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. El Raleigh
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NC Natural Heritage Program, USFWS Endangered Species Program
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA EFH website
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
National Regiser of Historic Places, Charlotte-Mecklenburg POLARIS
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NFIP Map number 3710456200J
Issac Hinson, P.W.S. --?--?-- 3/21/11
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
Attachment B
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
-Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
-Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
- USACE and NCDWQ Stream Assessment Data Forms
- Routine Wetland Determination Form
-Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
-Photographs
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: March 21, 2011
COUNTY Mecklenburg- TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT <I acre
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) 3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Isaac Hinson, PWS
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2844 [phone] Fax [phone]
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Michael Iagnocco, PWS
1000 W. Morehead St., Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 [phone]
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: Pipe replacement and extension)
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) Site Location Map (Attachment C - Figure 1)
(X) USGS 7.5' Charlotte East, NC (1997) Topographic Quadrangle (Attachment C - Figure 2)
(X) NRCS Soil Series Data (2002) Mecklenburg County, NC (Attachment C - Figure 3)
(X) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Attachment B)
(X) Proposed Impacts (Attachment C - Figure 4)
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit (Attachment A)
( ) Agent Certification of Authorization Form
(X) Stream Classification Forms
(X) Routine On-Site Data Forms
(X) Representative Photographs (Attachment B)

Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Isaac Hinson, PWS
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.187130° S, Long. -80.789220°V.
Universal Transverse Mercator: N 3893815.8 E 519189.9 Zone: 17S
Name of nearest waterbody: unnamed tributaries to McMullen Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 3/10/2011.
Field Determination. Date(s): 3/11/2011
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There' "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ?lfe* "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: Perennial RPW Stream A = -80 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or 0.01 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
C. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: .
_.. ., ,. ` 'ko
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanoshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: it
Drainage area: '
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through KkT1s,t tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are river miles from TNW
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Project waters are river miles from RPW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 06 aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all.that apply
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes:'.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands
? Cobbles ? Gravel
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
? Concrete
? Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/ ool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: frcv?js
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick Lid
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: `'List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: I'ic-Lid. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: k.1JiA. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: 00 Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OH)NM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: .
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: P? -rkt. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick Dist. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: non-jurisdictional stormwater conveyance.
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationshi Tt TNW
Project wetlands are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: PickvIis#.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick Lift floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if an )
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: &II
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Perennial RPW Stream A (unnamed tributary of McMullen Creek) has an OHWM, well-defined bed
and bank, moderate flow, and sediment deposition. Perennial RPW Stream A is not depicted on the USGS topographic
quadrangle or the SCS Soils Map and flows to an unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek (Perennial RPW), which flows to
McMullen Creek (Perennial RPW), which flows to McAlpine Creek (Perennial RPW) which flows to Sugar Creek (Perennial
RPW), which flows to the Catawba River (TNW).
[f Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: Perennial Stream A is -80 linear feet 5 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
[- Tributary waters: linear feet 2 width (ft).
0 Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
00 Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
abutting an RPW:
01 Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
El Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
[) Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
8See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
] Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
[] Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
[] Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
[] Lakes/ponds: acres.
[] Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
9 Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Attachment B -Approximate Jurisdictional
Boundary Field Map; Attachment C - Figures.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
[] Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
f Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24000, Charlotte East, NC (1997).
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, Sheet 7 of 13 .
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Charlotte East, NC.
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
` FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Mecklenburg County GIS 2009.
or ® Other (Name & Date): Photos (03/11/11).
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Q Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The limits of potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Stream A (Attachment B -
Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map) were approximated using a Trimble GeoXH hand-held GPS unit capable of subfoot
accuracy. Stream A, an unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek, was determined to be a relatively permanent water with perennial flow based
on an OHWM, well-defined bed and bank, moderate flow, and sediment deposition. Perennial RPW Stream A is not depicted on either the
USGS Quadrangle or the Soils Survey as a stream feature. Perennial RPW Stream A flows to an unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek
(Perennial RPW), which flows to McMullen Creek (Perennial RPW), which flows to McAlpine Creek (Perennial RPW), which flows to
Sugar Creek (Perennial RPW), which flows to the Catawba River (TNW).
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #.
Perennial RPW Stream A
o STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET AO
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte-Mecklenburg SWS 2. Evaluator's Name: B. Phillips
3. Date of Evaluation: 3/11/11 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:30 am
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: <100 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 ft. 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): west of Litchfield Road, south of Richland Drive to
confluence with Unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 35.187130°N -80.789220°W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): existing pipe culvert extension
14. Recent Weather Conditions:-- cool, sunny, recent rain
15. Site conditions at time of visit:- cool, 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 eval 'on point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surfacea
r
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES , O 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 90 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
10 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
21. Bankfull Width: 5 ft 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3 ft
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: X Straight -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): 44 Comments: Perennial RPW
Perennial RPW Stream A an unnamed tributary of McMullen Creek was determined to have perennial flow within project limits.
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is i en ed to be sed 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
Perennial RPW Stream A
LCOREGIO N T RANGE
# CHARAC'T'E
RISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0
5
0
5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) - - -
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1

l (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
I
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
0.4 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 3
y (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
?i Entrenchment / floodplain access

Q''
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
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= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
1 1
(line, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA* 0--4 0-5 3

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
,>4 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
1 i Presence of major bank failures

severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 3
14 Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oinis 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no ritlles/ri les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
F 17 Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
19 Substrate embeddedness *

(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max) NA 0-4 0-4 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
21 Presence of amphibians

0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0--4 l
0 22 Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 0

23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 44
1 uese cna[aclerisucs are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Divis on of Water Quality - Stt°e?,am Identification Formi, Ve! sion 3.1
Data: 03/11/2011 Project 3800 Litchfield Road Latitude 35 187130 deg N
Evaluator B . Phillips Site Longltude _80.789220 deg W ?
Stream A p erennral
Total Points- Ottrer '
Sjreafrr Is at *&m irnrerrrrlrL-M' Counity: Q
arlotte East NC
rYz f'9orDwetmiafif3.30 31.00 Mecklenburg eq Quad Na
Pt Gerxmorphglo y (subtotal
......, fOodorate :Sfron-q:.
1 x Continuous bed and bank 2.0 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity ....: _. _ 1.0 0 i 2 3
3 In-channel: strut tUre: rifle-pool sequence 1.0 Q `, 3
4 Soil texture of strearn substrate sciding 2.0 Q y 2
5 Activeirelic floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional mars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3 --?
7 Braided channel 0.0 3
8 Recent alluvial deposits .0
2 0 ? 2
8' Nakufal levees _....
°. -- . ........ ...... ............ ......... .
.
. ...1.0 ..
..:. 0 1 _ 2
10 Headcuts
d
a
11 Grace wrirols
0 5
i
®
5
1
1 5
12 Natural va ley or drainagemay

3J r.
..
0 0.5
1.5
13 cond or yore-"r order channel on existing
U SGS or MRCS map ar o her docurnented No _ Q Yes= 3
evrdence. 0.0
Man-mach ditches are not rated: see discussions in manua l
B droka:E,' .4 ?btc7tal,.:_°... 7.5:...
.
14 Groundwater floy4discharge
.. ._ .. ....... .. .._.. .......... 1
0 0 2
.................
1 ter irr Qbannel and > 48 Frs since rain ar ... ...... .... .. ...... ........... ............... ...... ...... ........ ............................ ..............................
.

Water in, channel . dr}• or' gmwin0 s"son

2,0

0

1

2
3
1 Leafl+tter 1...0. . 1 5_ i
._..... 1 95 0
17 Sediment on plants or detnis 1.4 _
0 I Q.5 1 1,5
18, Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack Irnes) 1.0 0 05 1 15
19. HyCfricsoils tredoxirnorpk features) preseryr„1.5?. ... No 0 Yes = 1,5
C. E3iol?>(??ub#Qt.?l
20D Fibrous roots in, channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
21 Rooted plants in channel
.:,._.
?.
0 3 2
t
p
_.
22 Crayfish
i .
.
1.0 ....... ... .. ................ ....,
On 5 F.. ..,.
1.5
23 &valves
Q.-.9

,
. . ..... .. 2 3
24 Frshi 0.0 © 0.5 t 1.5
15 Amphibians 0.5 0 US
26 Macfbbengr,,os (nci diversity and abundar?ce) 0
5 0 0
5
. , 1 1.5
27 Fitanrientous algae; pei+ phyton 2.0 0 1 2 3 "
28. Iran oxidizing bactenatfungus. 1.0
?
0.5
i
1.5
20.. V%tisnd plants io streami ed 0.50
" FA.C = 0.5; FA,C W = 0,75:: 0&_ = 1.5 SAV = 2
0; Other - 0
n
r(ems 20 and 21 focus on the presence d u, and an ts. Ite .
m 29 focuses on Ih2 pra5ance cA eWaCIC or wxtl6rtd,plenSs.
Notes: (fuse back side of Ihis form for' ad,dilional relies.) Sketc:'h.
Stream A was determined to be a perennial stream at pipe culvert
entering site.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: 3800 Litchfield Rd. Maintenance Project City/County: Charlotte/Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 3/11/11
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services State: NC Sampling Point: DP 1
Investigator(s): Brandon Phillips, C.H.M.M. Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Southern PiedmontLat: 35.187130 degrees Long: -80.789220 degrees Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: CUB - Cecil-Urban land complex 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Upland area located adjacent to perennial RPW.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
- Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) T Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
- High Water Table (A2) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (616)
- Water Marks (131) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
- Sediment Deposits (132) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
- Drift Deposits (133) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
- Algal Mat or Crust (134) - Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
- Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
- Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (133)
- Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
- Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No X
includes ca illa fringe) Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP 1
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
Acer rubrum
1.
Yes C A
50
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.

3 Total Number of Dominant
6
. Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.

5 Percent of Dominant Species
. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50 =Total Cover 0131- species 0 x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius ) FACW species 20 x2= 40
1, Ligustrum sinense 30 Yes FAC FAC species 80 x 3 = 240
2. FACU species 30 x4= 120
3. UPL species 0 X5=
4. Column Totals: 130 (A) 400 (B)
5.
6. 3.1

Prevalence Index = B/A =
7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-
9.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
-
10.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
-
30 =Total Cover - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter radius)
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1. Stellaria media 30 Yes FACU - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2. Lamium amplexicaule 25 Yes NL
3. Gallium obtusum 20 Yes FACW- Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4
.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or

7 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
. height.
8.

9. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
11 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
75 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:1 meter radius) height.
H
edera helix
1. 20 Yes NL
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6. Present? Yes No X
20 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Photograph 3.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point: DP 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 3/2 100 M sandy
12-18 10YR 4/3 100 M sandy
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al) - Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
- Histic Epipedon (A2) - Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) - Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) - Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) - Redox Dark Surface (F6) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) - Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) - Redox Depressions (F8) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
- Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, - Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
- Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
- Sandy Redox (S5) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
- Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No _X
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
L"T + ?.'.
N s
Aw. - N" . J,
Ilk
t ? y \ti
Upland L?ata Point 1 `.,1?,. ?;.. •'.- `• ,.. ,....
?. ? ?1 '. ..' jj"tom ,\ F' ?/. ; `'y/?? '?'X'. •?'. ±..
t t ,t1 itt /?j: '4'• Yt(?. ?L^4 t ;j ,\ ?i4 ri 'y
7+- r
? 1? ?.•,...,il?_ err..
'??:.• ? f. R° ??} ? . -'r ? ??t ?
% ?t?f a ?z. ? •°? i ..
Poteii i,tl Perennial RPW Stream A (80 If)
?,.' r ? t. •; tit f
ilk tQ'. ?i {r . 1 1"t'j•' I` _
r
100
t .
L , . Sty r?• +.t>. ? ? y.
y f?
fr , <' ??lr -, h 61 ?M .. yA • 1. -•`\f• ,A 1 r n ? ,? y. ,K - ? 7
.T ' s• • t , ?? ? ,?tl , r , $ ?? ? fir 'r,,.
i; K?us ?jrt *th,tC ?k t.j
r 'r- G rr t
??°' +.4' ? ?' It t µ?+ ;4"i , •,? ?• ?;- °4 4?_ ?` 9 • ` ?• "t s p ; f Sy
Legend
Project Study Area (0.22 Acre) "ui; yt "'y i
- Potential RPW
O Wetland Determiantion Data Point , asoo Litchfield Road Maintenance Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
` . ,,fir •°.
Q ? Photograph Location and Direction a,,,,.,so-k,,
X STORM
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates - .WATER
Note: s«.,
1. Potential jurisdictional locations for waters of the U.S. were Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary
determined and approximated by STV/Ralph Whitehead ?•
Associates on March 11, 2011, using a Trimble GEOXH hand-held Field Map
GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for
planning purposes only.
2. Jurisdictional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not been .. f' BJP AWN BJP MAI 3/14/2011
flagged in the field or verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers I IELD REVIEW By PREPARED BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY DATE
and are subject to change following delineation and verification. y?,• ,;
Reference: 2009 Aerial Photography, Mecklenburg County GIS
2514331 1"=100' Litchfield Road Fiotures\Fig4 Waters mxd 1 1
JOB NO. SCALE GIS FILE PATH SHEET OF
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3

Photograph 1. A view of the existing pipe and headwall discharging from under Litchfield Road.

Photograph 2. Another view of Perennial RPW Stream A looking upstream.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
Photograph 3. Another view of Perennial RPW Stream A and a sewer line crossing within the
channel looking upstream toward Litchfield Road.
Photograph 4. Another view of Perennial RPW Stream A looking downstream.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 21, 2011
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
Attachment C
Figures
Hidd nbrook Dr N
ti
?c y3? d -'E
? ??% G 'app \
E
.° .? Rd
61-
O`
0<
Mecklenburg County Vicinity Map o°d
00
Psr ?. y
Pd ?? ? ?a
tth Nr
° G 9G N?
9a ess P?
,o ?Pa Nan
?a
P
L51
j Gk
ractOtte
Q?ee? G
dNd alesworth
woo ?z t
Near ?\rdaL? d? Brantha
p heddington r
v1 oodta
<K ?? 9a
Co nthian PI
rw\°r Rd ?
9 GCee ?, ? s I
d? C c? 5?
9Q
Gr
o?f9a %/c?? ,\k
a ya
'Po
70 0
w
Reference: Mecklenburg County GIS data, 2009
CRarfoEMM?ddw?u?Q
STORM
ER
-., WATER
por roc
FO/Ail
?°
?y
Q°
Approximate Project Study Area
S Ivia Ct
C
Q'
m ?
Oo? a?F
5 c
r o
3
CL
411 Swvk"
o
Q ? O
O) 0 ?Sf?f ?PJ
_.a L? ?. ? o?A GlP'/
?a
Scale: 1:12,000
3800 Litchfield Road SITE LOCATION
Maintenance Project X
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mecklenburg County, NC FIGURE 1
3800 Litchfield Road
Maintenance Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
x
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates
USGS SITE LOCATION
FIGURE 2
her. uSUH-NHUZ5-NU6U uigital Raster Graphic MrSID Mosaic, Charlotte East. NC Quadrangle (1997) Scale: 1:24,000
Mapped Soil Units in the Project Study Area
CuB - Cecil-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
3800 Litchfield Road
Maintenance Project
X
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates
SOILS MAP
Mecklenburg County, NC
FIGURE 3
Fier. NhUb 5011 Series Data, Mecklenburg County, NC (2002) Scale: 1:12,000
a i .lk•Y,c G V"'\.
Perennial RPW Stream A Impacts = Proposed
lop,
20 If Pipe Extension and 30 If Riprap Apron `
'?+ t !
y,< (250 sq. ft./0.006 acre)
??.? ? ?, ,?? ,? ??? ? ?- , rr4 ;• Z5 ,": ? ?+•'' ? ?;,
it YS'. r1 - Al
15
'1r??? t ?A
` l i y
-•l• - X111. • _,'?, a •4.
r•C.`?'? tv
•i t;, X11 ? ' .l ?•^ ?, ? a. ?t ,3r ??{i?? •\ '?" F 5 ?~ •,?
•Yt '3 f• '{psi:-C d n, '? ?
4
Perennial RPW Strearn A (80 It) -
Y a, ? y? .?Y .
'&w
\ ? !? v ?« `?e ? S ? ',1 ? L ' ,1., ' ? *C } ??` ,M F4 -. Y . . ? •'?1 .. `C ?.lL !
T `5111 ? lr ? t
??'•' ? , '' to 4'?.s ?ir7
1. LM
it '! Ai
IMF
f^',,jl ?.. ' t _?? ?'? _ ?..•'u>t;d/?t ..Syr }?. .i
1631
I ?
`?A r ? . "'? s ',..x!17 },i??e? .mot'' I IM1.?: ' ,fi=r, ?J• •J,•Z - C
- r a
0 30 60 120 180 240
Legend` F'=? Feet
Project Study Area (0.22 Acre)
3800 Litchfield Road Maintenance Project
- RPW 1 J Mecklenburg County, NC
Proposed RPW Impacts (50 Linear Feet)
X WMSTORM
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates WATER
Note:
1. Potential jurisdictional locations for waters of the U.S. were
determined and approximated by STV/Ralph Whitehead Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
Associates on March 11, 2011, using a Trimble GEOXH hand-held FIGURE 4
GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for
planning purposes only.
2. Jurisdictional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not been BJP AWN BJP MAI 3/14/2011
flagged in the field or verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FIELD REVIEW BY PREPARED BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY DATE
and are subject to change following delineation and verification.
2514331 1"=100' N.1R0d\FgurXFig4_S plact it d Id 1 1
Reference: 2009 Aerial Photography, Mecklenburg County GIS JOB NO. SCALE GISFILE PATH SHEET OF