20110578 Ver 1_401 Application_20110611

Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Transmittal
Date: June 15, 2011 Job Number: 015630009
Project Name: Whitemarsh Stream Stabilization Site
To: Mr. Ian McMillian
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
We are sending these by
E] U.S. Mail
n Other:
® FedEx ? Hand Deliver
We are sending you
® Attached
? Shop Drawings
Other:
Copies Date
No. Description
5 6/10/11 1 404/401 Permit Application 1 p
1E 11 \W P
4 6/10/11 2 Half-Size Plans
1 6/10/11 3 Full-Size Plans ;
1 6/10/11 4 Check Payment for Permitting Fee ''

YVetlandka *.rinwater Branch
These are transmitted as checked below.
? For your use Approved as submitted
As requested Approved as noted
? For review and comment ? Returned for corrections
Remarks:
Copy to: File
Under separate cover via the following items:
? Prints/Plans 0 Samples Specifications ? Change Orders
201 10578
Suite 440
2000 South Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina
28203
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Resubmit Copies for approval
® Submit Copies for distribution
? Return Corrected prints
Signed Jason Claudio-Diaz, P.E.
Page 1
Kimley-Horn
C and Associates, Inc.
Suite 440
2000 South Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina
28203
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Transmittal
201 105T8
Date: June 15, 2011 Job Number: 015630009
Project Name: Whitemarsh Stream Stabilization Site
To: Mr. Ian McMillian
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
e are sending these by
DENR WATER (QJAL Tw
ettttand?g =mwa.?c[3ranctr?; U.S.Mail
Other:
We are sending you
Z Attached
E] Shop Drawings
? Other:
Copies Date
No. Description
5 6/10111 1 404/401 Permit Application
4 6/10/11 2 Half-Size Plans
1 6/10/11 3 Full-Size Plans
1 6/10/11 4 Check Payment for Permitting Fee

These are transmitted as checked below.
? For your use ? Approved as submitted
As requested Approved as noted
? For review and comment Returned for corrections
Remarks:
Copy to: File
® FedEx ? Hand Deliver
? Under separate cover via
? Prints/Plans ? Samples
the following items:
Specifications [] Change Orders
Resubmit Copies for approval
® Submit Copies for distribution
Return ? Corrected prints
Signed Jason Claudio-Diaz, P.E.
Page 1
20110578
CM Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
June 10, 2011
Ms. Amanda Jones
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Ian McMillan ?, ..?
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
¦
Suite 440
2000 South Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina
28203
sP.A11D 1 .lurv i
Re: 404/401 Permit (Nationwide 27) Application 6 2_? 11
Whitemarsh Stream Stabilization Site
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC L-WettaNdRs, g ?k c?U,gt
Dear Ms. Jones and Mr. McMillan:
On behalf of our client, Charlotte Stormwater Services, Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. is submitting the enclosed joint Section 404/401 Preconstruction
Notification Application for the above referenced project for your review
pursuant to a Nationwide Permit #27 and General 401 Water Quality
Certification number 3689. This application is to construct stream restoration for
the purposes of improving water quality, bank stabilization, and aquatic habitat.
The following information is included as part of this application submittal:
• Project Summary Sheet
• Pre-Construction Notification Form
• Site Figures
o Figure 1 - Vicinity
o Figure 2 - USGS Topo (Weddington Quadrangle, 1993)
o Figure 3 - SSURGO Soils and USFWS National Wetland
Inventory (2009 Aerial Photograph)
o Figure 4 - Jurisdictional Features (2009 Aerial Photograph)
• Construction Plan Drawing
• Site Data forms and Photographs
o USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
o NCDWQ Stream Identification Form
o Site Photographs
• Additional Jurisdictional Determination Documentation (USACE
Submittal Only)
o USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Can Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
The project site is located in Charlotte, NC within Mecklenburg County at 7031
Whitemarsh Court. The project site is part of a residential property within a
larger residential development. Existing land use in the vicinity of the project
includes single family residential development, commercial development, and
undeveloped forested land.
The 404/401 (NWT 27) application presents site conditions evaluated by Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc (KHA) staff (Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT) on May 5,
2011. The stream delineation was performed by utilizing survey prepared by a
licensed surveyor (verified by KHA).
The proposed project seeks to restore -175 linear feet of an Unnamed Tributary
to McMullen Creek. The project will result in temporary impacts to 175 linear
feet of a perennial RPW from the restoration activities necessary to improve
stream functions and reduce bank erosion.
Please feel free to contact Isaac Hinson at [phone] if you have any
questions, or if additional information is necessary.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gam- ?-?s?
Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT
Environmental Analyst
Attachments
Cc: Isaac Hinson, PWS, Charlotte Storm Water Services
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Whitemarsh Stream Stabilization Site
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: McMullen Homes Assoc / Charlotte Storm Water Services
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
*Agent authorization needs to be attached
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: 7031 Whitemarsh Court
7. City: Charlotte
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: 35.118522 Long: -80.830864 (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Weddington
11. Waterway: Unnamed tributary to McMullen Creek
12. Watershed: HUC 03050103 / Lower Catawba 03-08-34
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit #
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request (Mitigation Proposal)
The following information will be completed by the Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Begin Date
Site/Waters N
Keywords:
? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc, Project Summary Sheet
Project Name: Whitemarsh Stream Stabilization Site
Applicant Name and Address: Isaac Hinson
Charlotte Storm Water Services
600 East 4th Street
Charlotte NC 28202
Telephone Number: 704-336-4495
Type of Request: ® Nationwide PCN (NWP # 27) ? Individual Permit Application
® Jurisdictional Determination ? Other:
Included Attachments: ® Project Plans ® USGS Map ® NRCS Soil Survey
® Agent Authorization ® Delineation Sketch ? Delineation Survey
? Data Forms (Up & Wet) ® NCDWQ Stream Forms ® USACE Stream Forms
? NCEEP Confirmation ® Aerial Photo ® Site Photos
? Agency Correspondence ? Other: ? Other:
Check if applicable: ? CAMA County ? Trout County ? Isolated Waters
? Section 7, ESA ? Section 106, NHPA ? EFH
? Mitigation Proposed (? NC EEP ? On-Site ? Off-Site ? Other)
County: Mecklenburg Nearest City/Town: Charlotte
Waterway: UT to McMullen Creek
H.U.C.: 03050103-Lower Catawba
Property Size (acres):
River Basin: Catawba
USGS Quad Name: Weddington
Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 0.022
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.118522 °N
-80.830864 °W
Project Location: The project site is located behind residence 7031 Whitemarsh Court and southeast of the intersection of
Quail Hollow Road and Carnoustie Lane in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC.
Site Description: The project site is part of a residential property within a larger residential development. Existing land use
in the vicinity of the project includes single family residential development, commercial development, and undeveloped
Impact Summary (if applicable): The project will result in 175 linear feet of temporary impacts to the Unnamed Tributary
to McMullen Creek.
O
W W
l
d Stream Channel
NWP
# pen
ater
(acres) et
an
(acres) Intermittent and/or Unimportant
Aquatic Function Perennial and/or Important
Aquatic Function
Temp. Perm. Tem . Perm.
Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. if ac If ac if ac if Ac
175 0.022

Total
Total Permanent Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.022
Kimley-Horn Contact: Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT
¦
2000 South Boulevard Ste 440
Charlotte, North Carolina
28203
Direct Number: [phone]
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
20110578
0F W A
TF9OG
o?
6
O 'c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Whitemarsh Stream Stabilization
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: McMullen Homes Association and Charles E. Ziegler
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Book 04369 Page 984
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address: 7031 Whitemarsh Court
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28210
3f. Telephone no.: 704-458-6612 (Gleneagles Home Owners Association)
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page I 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
4b. Name: Isaac Hinson
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Storm Water Services
4d. Street address: 600 East 4th Street
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina 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: Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5c. Street address: 4651 Charlotte Park Drive, Suite 300
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28217
5e. Telephone no.: 704-333-5131
5f. Fax no.. 704-3330845
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
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): 20934149
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.118522 Longitude: -80.830864
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 3.34 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: Class C water
2c. River basin: Lower 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 location is currently a residential site. The right bank is maintained and has landscape trees and shrubs
located immediately on the bank. The left bank is unmaintained forested area adjacent to the street right-of-way.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.00 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
-181 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project is in response to erosion complaints from the homeowner. The channel on the subject property is extremely
unstable and is experiencing both vertical and horizontal erosion. There are several headcuts moving through this
section and the banks are eroding into the homeowners landscaped areas. The erosion also is threatening several
utilities such as telephone and sanitary sewer that runs parallel to the channel on the right bank. This section of channel
is very steep and does not have adequate access to a floodprone area.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project utilizes natural channel design techniques to address the instabilities in the channel. In-stream structures will
be used to create grade control, provide in-stream habitat, and to help protect the banks. A typical channel section will be
constructed to help alleviate the high shear stresses currently experienced by the channel by adding a floodprone area
where the higher flows from rain events can be dissipated. Overall, the design seeks to stabilize the channel, reduce
erosion, improve in-stream habitat and geomorphology, protect the homeowners investments, and protect the utilities. It
is anticipated that a back-hoe and/or mini excavator will be used to shape the channel and construct the in-stream
structures. The work will be performed in the dry by utilizing a pump around system.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property/
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ®No ? Unknown
Comments:
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: Kimley-Horn and
Name (if known): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT Associates, Inc.
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
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 R 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-Impact 1 Restoration/ UT to McMullen ® PER ® Corps 10 175
? P ® T Stabilization Creek ? INT ® DWQ
S1-Impact 2 ? PER ? Corps
? P ? T ? 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 175
3i. Comments:
Page 5of11
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.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number 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 DWQ)
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 im act required?
131 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
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.
This project proposes to utilize natural channel design restoration techniques to address the channel instability and will result
in temporary impacts only. This should result in functional uplift within the immediate project area, prevent upstream headcut
migration, and decrease sediment deposition to the downstream channel reach.
The rock toe protection will be used to reduce the amount of grading necessary on the private property side (left bank). It will
also serve to protect the telephone and sewer utilities that run parallel to the stream in that area. The rock toe will also serve
to prevent the design from impacting several large trees on both banks. The trees are very important to the homeowner
because these are large trees and they provide screening and a noise barrier with the adjacent road.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Several of the measures used to minimize the impacts are pump-around to facilitate working in the dry and the use of
temporary erosion control matting and native vegetation for stabilization. The project impacts will be temporary.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?

pro ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
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:
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
1a. 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:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: There is no increase in impervious
surface proposed.
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?
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? 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
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? 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. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 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
? Yes ? No
letter.)
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.
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 D Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act [] Yes ® No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Natural Heritage GIS Database (Natural Heritage Elements Occurances shapefile)
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 Essential Fish Habitat Online Mapper
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?
NC State Historic Preservation Office
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? DFRIM Panel 4550, March 3, 2009
Isaac Hinson 4 11-S'( I
Date
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Charlotte Storm Water Services 2. Evaluator's name: CMT
3. Date of evaluation: 5/5/2011 4. Time of evaluation: 9:30 am
5. Name of stream: Reach 1 UT to McMullen Creek)
7. Approximate drainage area: 40 ac
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50ft.
6. River basin: Lower Catawba
8. Stream order:
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.118522 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -80.830864
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GI Othe Survey/GIS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Reach 1 is
located behind residence 7031 Whitemarch Court and southeast of the intersection of Quail Hollow Road and Carnoustie Lane.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Stabilization/Restoration using natural channel design techniques
15. Recent weather conditions: Moderate rainfall within 24 hours: Sunny 70 degrees.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny and clear, 65 degrees.
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 85 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
15 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankf ill width: l Oft. 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5ft.
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X _Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. 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): 41 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 06/08/2011
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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Eco-re ion Point Ran
e
Ch
t
i
ti g Score
arac
er
s
cs Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 1
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)
?l 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 3
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
00
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
]
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
a+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
>0 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

0-0
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
0 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Q 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
F no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Qn 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
F no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 2
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
x
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
>-4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Wl
0
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 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 loo loo
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 41
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 5/5/2011 Project/Site:Stabilizaation tion wni Site/ stream Reach 1
S Latitude: 35.118522
Evaluator: CMT County: Mecklenburg Longitude: -80.830864
Total Points: 35
Stream Determination (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: Weddington
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 18.5 b??"` ?k.: " ' , trtitti '-
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3 re;
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalwe 0 1 2 3 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
ool se uence 0 1 2 3 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 1((
5Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 1'
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 191, '2
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 2
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.55 '.
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 `1,
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
anmciai dncnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 w 11115
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 :?: 1.5
-- 721
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1 '..
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 v.;';.... 3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
xv
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 1 2 3 A,: 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0,51111",
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5; Other = 0 1
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:

vr! r: 1 4t L,y 4
s ?' ?y , ? ?y ,? ..' ?, do M

f 'M1 W5 s l? ?1? t f. ... i??.
ON"

!FA

3,..
r++
-Op
" • 0
s,

View of Reach 1. Looking upstream at failed silt fence and rip-rap; eroding banks.

'Ilk
`i• \r .?. 4
O ,a a?. p ,yr rf
-.'rl,ut#.. ,'`;'? '?•t'a ? 'k , ., Yar.+
F.

??? ?r? ?? l?' ?„ t ? ,1'..??7? •-:'a'mt j?'• '?i?, ? ? ?"?`e'?, - ?"
r
R9 ' ?, ,11 ? x
:
t,v

r ? -
r„
* WS
i..
w

r Og0Og=

View of Reach 1. Looking downstream at a large headcut.
Title Site Photographs
Preparcd For.
Project Whitemarsh Stream Stabilization Site

ST RM Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
WATER
sly., Date KHA Project Number Site Photo Page
6/10/11 015630009 1
r Z" ., .
tl .:? 'bYTiC 11(t .; ?y ? p t ° N i ??? ? 1' •'.
yl Y "V I - P iP
.Fi ygp
61?
1
,
44,''r
„'?
A

7 -7
vi
s.d

+?,?-ir 4
NN
41
S.
f ?Yl s
4°
?1
'
>?
+
*
at
?
ay
.
y
b
.y,s.r' F pf
t.
`
/gyp°d
yR 'S°t +A
l

View of Reach I . Upstream view of erosion and headcut.
9
tr
° + tt ?
'
7
f
7
. e - ? y „sy ,- '•/
?'?? s '? a t
s
y
l
\ ,.
..
i
u

r
' 'tli ,iP? Y a
?
Y T
1

f•1??"I.n. ?. i". f ,: a1Y'1,. t e r? '!t 'lllkc~•? bd-?a?? ?G ?
P?cm , ' w 4411,

56

View of Reach 1. Upstream view of right bank erosion and headcut.
Title Site Photographs
Prepared For
Project Whitemarsh Stream Stabilization Site
0wW.*.Aw4.o
STORM
WX Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
WATER
Swvk.f ? Date KHA Project Number Site Photo Page
6/10/ 11 015630009 2
C E" u? I.,
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 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): June 8, 2011
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.1 18522° N, Long. -80.830864° E.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT 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: May 5, 2011
® Field Determination. Date(s): May 5, 2011
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "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 Are "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 waters' (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: 1751inear feet: 5'-6' width (ft) and/or 0.022 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
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.
z 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).
' 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:
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 Rapanos have 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 IIl.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section I I LC below.
Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: acres
Drainage area: acres
Average annual rainfall: 43 inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known:
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) milts from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List atrial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' 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: This is an urban stream within a watershed that is heavily
developed. The storm water network and downstream pond have altered/affected the tributary.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. 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):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
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
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(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:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the 01-IWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OIIWM 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): Primarily bottom-land hardwood vegetation.
? 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: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List 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):Bottomland hardwood vegetation.
? 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 any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
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:
3. 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):
1. 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.
2. 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:
® 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: See attached NCDWQ Stream Identification Form.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 175 linear feet5-6width (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 width (ft).
? 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.
? 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: .
? 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
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. 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.
? 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):10
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? 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:
"See 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 CI1A Act.lurisdietion Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
? Wetlands
acres.
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):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
? 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:
? 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:
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: SSURGO Soils.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):2009.
or ? Other (Name & Date):Site Photographs 5/5/2011.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
Identify type(s) of waters:
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
ROWAN
LINCOLN
CASTON
Figure 1 - Vicinity
Kimley-Horn
and land Associates, Inc.
CARARRUS
Study Area
UNION
0 1,250 21500 ? ?- -1 Study Area
l i i l l i i i l (N)
Feet ?
STORM
RUWATER Swvkos
iN;

1

'"
..
m
g
Mecklenburg County SSURGOSoil Survey ! PaE-
Symbol Description MeD Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 8to 15 percent slopes
*MO Monacan loam
MeB Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
PaE Pa col et san d y I oa m, 15 to 25 pe rce nt sl opes kD
I; 1"
WkB Wilkes loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes WkE Wilkes loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes; ?: r,•*s ;w n; ,'„€s '%
T s
WkD Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Indicates Hydric Soils r` #
317,
MeD ` xt 3-1 IM
fT W,
9 f#
ect
.o a w Y W k B a`
r
.` 1 ,,? '? ?. ' ' .. ,. ?L Y? ice. ?' ?'. ;Y- . •?.
O a f ,"1,?fit' "v's
a,
TIA
IN IM
All
a9 ,
'ter
w
MID
MeB, {, ¢ x
4
. 4?
r
71
MO:
(? > #
ate.}'t P
r -i
s.
WkE
`a K 1`
MeB WkB ?.
s w
?k
0 J,
? a rg?
MID
a . ;. 3 W1 .. ,.:
Title: j Legend:
Figure 3 - SSURGO Soils and USFWS National Wetland Inventory (2009 Aerial Photograph)
0 150 300 Streams NAMEMSTORM
on Kimley-Horn WArOTER,.
r, o 1 and Associates, Inc. L-1 I I I I I I I ?T ® Study Area swvlces-
Feet