The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130980 Ver 1_401 Application_20130913Letter of Transmittal S &ME, Inc. 9751 Southern Pine Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28273 (704) 523 -4726 (704) 525 -3953 fax N.C. Division of Water Resources Webscape Unit 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604 WE ARE SENDING YOU: ® Attached ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Copy of letter ® Report 20130980 DATE: September 11, 2013 1 JOB NO: 1357 - 13-0;3 ATTENTION: Ms. Karen Higgins Storm Drainage Improvement Project ❑ Under separate cover via the following Items: ® Plans ❑ Draft ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION Nationwide Permit No. 3 Pre - Construction Notification (with Design Plans), 1 9.11.2013 1 Jurisdictional Determination Copy of Nationwide Permit No. 3 Pre - Construction Notification (without Appendix V: 4 9.11.2013 2 Design Plans) CD Copy of Nationwide Permit No. 3 Pre- Construction Notification (with Design 1 9.11.2013 3 Plans), Jurisdictional Determination 9.10.2013 4 Check No. 021823 in the amount of $570.00 (Processing fee) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ® For approval ❑ As requested ❑ FORBIDS DUE: _/ / ❑ For your record ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US 'f REMARKS: Attached please find the above. Note that the four copies of the PCN do not include Appendix V• Desian Plans Please let Isaac Hinson or David Homans know if you have Questions. Thank you. - Darzin Peine L rl'� SIGN: 9, 20 13 COPY TO: IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE. This Letter of Transmittal and the documents accompanying this Letter of Transmittal contain information from S &ME, Inc., which is confidential and legally privileged. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named on this Letter of Transmittal. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on these documents is strictly prohibited. S &ME SFG-001 (Rev. 04104) i P _�. ► I L M� :� September 11, 2013 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006 Attention: Ms. Amanda Fuemmeler N.C. Division of Water Resources 401 Wetlands Unit 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Attention: Ms. Karen Higgins Reference: Pre - Construction Notification (Nationwide Permit No. 3) and Request for Jurisdictional Determination Ponderosa / Markland Storm Drainage Improvement Project Charlotte, North Carolina S &ME Prcj ect No. 1357 -13 -023 Dear Ms. Fuemmeler & Ms. Higgins: On behalf of Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS), S &ME, Inc. (S &ME) is submitting this application for impacts to waters of the U.S. in accordance with Department of the Army Nationwide Permit (N WP) No. 3 (Maintenance Activities) and North Carolina General Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3883. This Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) is being submitted for storm drainage maintenance activities along jurisdictional waters in and around the Ponderosa subdivision in Charlotte, North Carolina. In support of this application, please find enclosed the following: • Figures: Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), 2010 Aerial Photograph (Figure 3), Approximate Waters of the U.S. / Proposed Jurisdictional Impacts (Figure 4), and Site Design: Channel Segment 3 (Figure 5); • Appendix I: Completed PCN Form; • Appendix II: Site Photographs; • Appendix III: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form; • Appendix IV: Wetland Determination Data Forms and N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) Stream Identification Forms; and • Appendix V: Design Plans. S &ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Blvd / Charlotte, NC / p 704.523.4726 / f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com NWP 3 PCN /Request for Jurisdictional Determination S &ME Project No. 1357 -13 -023 Ponderosa /Markland Storm Drainage Improvements, Charlotte, N.C. September11, 2013 The proposed project impacts include permanent modification to 127 linear feet (lf) of free flowing stream, as well as modifications to 293 if of riprap lined channel. As the proposed project involves impacts to greater than 401f of stream and involves dredge and fill within streams, written concurrence from DWR and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers ( USACE) is required. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The proposed project area is primarily located in the Ponderosa subdivision off of West Boulevard in Charlotte, North Carolina within an area largely bounded by Markland Drive to the north, west and south, and Kenhill Drive to the east. The primary area of storm drainage improvements is bounded by Wedgefield Drive to the north and Fordwood Drive the south. The proposed drainage improvements continue west under Markwood Drive and a Norfolk Southern railroad right -of -way, terminating a short ways to the west beyond the railroad. An additional temporary construction access road is also proposed which will run parallel and to the west of the railroad, connecting the storm drainage improvement area to Holabird Lane. The location of the project area is depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the appropriate portions of the Charlotte West (1993) USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), and the 2010 Aerial Photograph (Figure 3). The project is a part of the City of Charlotte's Ponderosa Neighborhood Improvement Project (NIP). The NIP includes the installation of 5,825 If of new sidewalk, improvements to the existing curb and gutter system, and upgrades to the existing municipal water system infrastructure as well as significant upgrades and repairs to the storm drainage system throughout the neighborhood. The primary goal of the proposed storm drainage improvements are to: 1) upgrade the ageing and undersized storm water infrastructure to meet current city, state, and Norfolk Southern design standards, 2) alleviate residential structure and roadway flooding that has been occurring due to the undersized drainage infrastructure, and 3) minimize downstream impacts occurring to the receiving channel and adjacent sanitary sewer infrastructure. In order to meet these goals, the City of Charlotte proposes to reshape and add step pool structures to 263 if of currently serviceable riprap -lined channel, replace and extend an existing 42" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culvert under Markland Drive with a 2721f 6' X 3' box culvert, install 90 If of 36" steel pipe culvert parallel and adjacent to the existing 30' culvert under the railroad, and reshape and add toe armoring and plunge pool installation along 1271f of the downstream receiving channel. FIELD OBSERVATIONS On August 22, 2013, Mr. David Homans and Mr. Darrin Peine, S &ME natural resources professionals, visited the project area to determine the jurisdictional status of streams and to look for any additional jurisdictional features. The delineation was conducted utilizing currently accepted methods for wetland determination, as set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Stream assessments were conducted in accordance with DWR and USACE guidelines. The results of the jurisdictional delineation are depicted on Figure 4. Representative photographs of the project area are included in Appendix 11 and their locations are included on Figure 4. 2 NWP 3 PCN /Request for Jurisdictional Determination S &ME Project No. 1357 -13 -023 Ponderosa /Markland Storm Drainage Improvements, Charlotte, N.C. September11, 2013 S &ME's field review of the project area identified one jurisdictional "seasonal" relatively permanent water (RPW); an un -named tributary (UT) of Taggart Creek (a tributary of Sugar Creek in the Lower Catawba River drainage basin). This channel was divided into three distinct channel segments: Channel Segment I This channel segment originates at a storm sewer outfall west of Kenhill Drive and flows to the west between fenced residential backyards on Wedgefield Drive to the north and Fordwood Drive to the south before entering a 42" RCP culvert under Markland Drive. The channel is filled with riprap from bank to bank for the entirety of its length (see photo 1, Appendix 11); as such, determination of its flow regime was not feasible, though continuous flowing water was not observed. Though this channel segment was assumed to be a jurisdictional water of the U.S. due to flow regime observed downstream, it exhibited little to no functional aquatic habitat and was serving primarily as serviceable storm water infrastructure. Channel Segment This channel segment originates at the outfall of the 42" RCP culvert under Markland Drive (photo 2) and flows through a fenced off area in the backyard of the residence at 3112 Markland Drive (photo 3) before flowing into a 30" RCP under the Norfolk Southern railroad right -of -way. Similar to Channel Segment 1, this channel segment is lined with riprap from top of bank to top of bank. Though some flowing water was observed in this channel segment, its flow regime could not be determined as recent rains prior to the site observation could have provided flowing water to an intermittently flowing channel. Channel Sew Channel segment 3 originates at the outfall of the 30" RCP culvert under the railroad (photo 4) and flows west for approximately 2801f to its confluence with another UT of Taggart Creek. The channel was classified as an intermittently flowing jurisdictional channel based on a DWR Stream Identification Form score of 29.5. Though this score is on the borderline between intermittent and perennial, it is likely that the channel does exhibit intermittent periods of drying, as flow observed at the time of observation was limited to isolated pools even though the watershed had experienced significant rainfall a few days prior to observation and an exceptionally wet year prior to that. The channel appears to have experienced excessive aggradation, and much of the bed was filled with large deposits of fine sediment. A sanitary sewer manhole is present along the left bank of the channel and the area smelled of sewer at the time of observation. After following a meandering pattern for approximately 125 if (photo 5), Channel Segment 3 narrows and flows straight over a section clogged with debris and urban refuse with little or no visible flow (photo 6). Along the proposed access road west of the railroad tracks approximately 450 feet south of the UT to Taggard Creek, a drainage ditch was evaluated for potential jurisdiction. As the ditch lacked an ordinary high water mark or geomorphic conditions consistent with regular flow, it was determined to not be a jurisdictional stream. This feature was also evaluated to determine if it met the characteristics of a jurisdictional linear wetland. As 3 NWP 3 PCN /Request for Jurisdictional Determination S &ME Project No. 1357 -13 -023 Ponderosa /Markland Storm Drainage Improvements, Charlotte, N.C. September11, 2013 hydric soil indicators were not identified within the ditch, it was determine to be a non - jurisdictional feature. No wetlands were identified in the project area. Uplands west of the railroad tracks were largely forested with a mix of loblolly pine (Pious taeda) and hardwood species including sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua), red maple (Acer rubrum) and ash (Fraxinus sp.). Additionally, the riparian areas adjacent to the UT to Taggart Creek exhibited and understory dominated by Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and near complete ground cover by English ivy (Hedera helix). The area east of the railroad tracks was dominated by a high density single - family residential area; upland areas here were made up of maintained residential yards. A completed USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form is included in Appendix III. A Completed DWR Stream Identification Form for the UT to Taggart Creek and a USACE Wetland Determination Form for the upland adjacent to the creek are included in Appendix IV. PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS Project impacts are detailed in Table 1, below. The project will involve modifications to 293 if of the riprap lined channel observed; this includes 1191f of cross - sectional and longitudinal profile modification at Channel Segment 2 and 148 If of cross - sectional and longitudinal profile modification and step -pool grade control installation along Channel Segment 1. Additionally, alignment constraints associated with replacing the existing 42" RCP under Markland Drive with a 6' x 3' box culvert will necessitate extension of the upstream end of culvert; this will result in 301f of riprap lined channel loss. Downstream of the railroad, 1271f of impacts are proposed to the free - flowing (non- exempt) Channel Segment 3. In order to effectively dissipate energy at the outfall of the existing 30" RCP and proposed 36" steel pipe, 121f of the existing channel will be converted into a riprap lined plunge pool. Downstream of the plunge pool, the channel will be slightly realigned and riprap toe armoring will be installed resulting in an additional 115 If of impact. This realignment is necessary in order to maintain stability in the channel while transitioning it into the narrower receiving channel and in order to shifting the existing sewer manhole off of the channel bank and into the floodplain where it will be better protected from damage and be less likely to cause stream contamination. CMSWS believes that this activity would be considered a standard maintenance dredge activity rather than channelization or channel relocation and would hence be authorized under NWP 3 as: 1) the alignment shift is very minor (the maximum proposed lateral shift in thawleg is approximately 18 feet), 2) the shift is necessary maintenance in order to re- establish an effective outfall to the receiving channel while protecting the existing infrastructure, and 3) the resulting channel maintains some sinuosity and has a sinuosity matching that of the downstream receiving channel. The proposed project designs (cross section and plan view) and the associated jurisdictional impacts for the free flowing channel are summarized on Figure 5. Complete plans for this project, including pipe details, sediment and erosion control measures, plans for modifications to exempted channels, and proposed channel cross 12 NWP 3 PCN /Request for Jurisdictional Determination S &ME Project No. 1357 -13 -023 Ponderosa /Markland Storm Drainage Improvements, Charlotte, N.C. Septemberl1, 2013 sections are located in Appendix V and on the attached CD, along with a digital copy of this PCN. Table 1: Proposed Impacts Impact # Stream Current Impact Impact Description LF Smooth coneflower Section Status Type S1 Segment Intermittent / Temporary Reshape channel cross section, 148 Lasmigona decorata 1 Riprap -Lined Carolina heelsplitter replace existing riprap Historical S2 Segment Intermittent / Permanent Extension of culvert due to culvert 30 1 Riprap -Lined alignment requirements S3 Segment Intermittent / Temporary Reshape channel cross section, 119 2 Riprap -Lined replace existing riprap S4 Segment Intermittent / Permanent Install riprap -lined stilling basin 12 3 Free - flowing structure S5 Segment Intermittent / Temporary Minor channel realignment/ 115 3 Free - flowing installation of riprap bank toe armor Total (Temporary) 382 Total (Permanent) 42 Grand Total 424 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Protected Species S &ME's consideration of potential protected species habitat began with a review of existing records obtained from federal and state sources. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of federally protected species (updated September 22, 2010) was consulted for a listing of protected species documented within Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. This review identified four protected species, three plants and one animal. Listed flora and fauna and their federal rank and county status are identified in Table 1. Explanations of rankings are included at the end of the table. Table 2: Federally Protected Flora and Fauna Summary Species Federal Rank" County Status Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower E Current Helianthus schweinitzii E Current Schweinitz's sunflower Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E Historical Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Historical E = Endangered As part of the protected species review, S &ME also reviewed the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) files of Element Occurrence (EO) and Natural Heritage Areas available from NC OneMap. This review found no extant EOs of federally protected species on record within a two -mile radius of the project area. 5 NWP 3 PCN /Request for Jurisdictional Determination S &ME Project No. 1357 -13 -023 Ponderosa /Markland Storm Drainage Improvements, Charlotte, N.C. September11, 2013 S &ME completed a field reconnaissance of the project area on August 22, 2013. The project area was identified as consisting of maintained residential areas to the east of the railroad tracks and mixed hardwood upland to the west of the railroad tracks. These are not the preferred habitat types for the listed plant species, all of which prefer open disturbed areas which do not undergo continual maintenance. As such, and given the absence EOs within the vicinity, we feel that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect these species. Though the Carolina heelsplitter is listed (historically) for Mecklenburg County, the receiving drainages of the project (Taggart Creek) have no documented occurrences of Carolina heelsplitter and are not part of its designated critical habitat. Additionally, the waters to be impacted are borderline intermittent and of very poor habitat and water quality; they should therefore be considered unsuitable for Carolina heelsplitter. A copy of this NWP No. 3 application will be provided to the USFWS - Asheville Field Office. Cultural Resources A copy of this NWP No. 3 application will be provided to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), requesting that they review their records regarding cultural, archaeological, or historical resources in or near the project area and to provide written comments regarding the interests of their agency. A review of the SHPO GIS Web Service indicated that there were no properties currently listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within a half -mile radius of the project. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION Impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and have been limited to the areas necessary to meet current design standards and provide the necessary capacity to reduce upstream flooding risk. The current design was chosen as a result of a Downstream Impacts Analysis that was prepared for CMSWS to determine the best alternative for reducing upstream flood risk and minimizing impacts while generating no adverse downstream impact to FEMA floodways. Riprap stilling basins have been designed to the minimum size recommended by storm water construction guidelines to effectively dissipate energy. Riprap armoring along Channel Segment 3 will be limited to armoring the toe of the slope which is the minimum amount required to maintain channel stability. The majority of project goals will be addressed through modifications to currently impacted Channel Sections (1 and 2). To prevent sedimentation of downstream waters, construction will be conducted in the dry. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures placed in waters will be removed and the original grade restored upon completion of the project. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Following construction, disturbed areas adjacent to the work site will be restored to original grade and elevation. Appropriate erosion and sediment control practices will be 0 NWP 3 PCN /Request for Jurisdictional Determination S &ME Project No. 1357 -13 -023 Ponderosa /Markland Storm Drainage Improvements, Charlotte, N.C. September11, 2013 implemented to meet water quality turbidity standards. Best Management Practices employed for the project will be in compliance with the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual," and the local governing authority. After construction, disturbed areas will be appropriately seeded and restored. The use of additional riprap has been minimized; it will be limited to plunge pool areas and as toe protection along Channel Segment 3, and will not be placed in the bed of the channel outside of the plunge pool area. Appropriate measures will be taken during construction to allow flow and circulation patterns of waters of the U.S. to remain unaffected. Though the new pipe being installed under the railroad right of way will not be buried below the stream substrate and thus will not meet the requirements of condition 8 in WQC 3883. The proposed pipe design at this crossing (i.e. the proposed pipe being installed parallel to the existing pipe, which will remain in place) was determined to be the alternative that best minimized downstream peak flow and upstream flooding risk while also meeting the engineering requirements imposed by Norfolk Southern. Additionally, passage for aquatic organisms need not be considered in this instance as no free - flowing, non - riprapped stream habitat is available upstream, making this the effective ecological origin of the drainage system. All modifications to channels do not extend greater than 200 feet beyond the existing structures as is required by NWP 3, and are the minimum amount required to restore the flow capacity that current engineering standards mandate. The proposed project will not result in additional impervious surface or additional fill within a FEMA floodway, and is designed to alleviate the current risk of flooding within the project area and downstream. MITIGATION Based on conversations with the USACE for similar projects, we anticipate that mitigation will not be required for impacts associated with this project as: 1) less than 1501f of free flowing channel (Channel Segment 3) will be permanently impacted (1271f of impacts proposed); 2) Less than 1501f of jurisdictional channel will be lost (121f in Channel Segment 3 converted to riprap -lined plunge pool and 301f of Channel Segment 1 converted from riprap lined channel to culvert); 3) The resulting stabilized condition with the sanitary sewer manhole shifted off of the bank on Channel Segment 3 could be considered an improvement over its current degraded state. 7 NWP 3 PCN /Request for Jurisdictional Determination S &ME Project No. 1357 -13 -023 Ponderosa /Markland Storm Drainage Improvements, Charlotte, N.C. September11, 2013 CLOSING By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN form (Appendix I), we are requesting your written concurrence with authorization of this project under NWP 3. If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact us at 704.523.4726. Sincerely, RD. David Homans Project Scientist -Y'� VV �7 Julie Bennett- Hudel, P.G. LEED AP Senior ReviewerReviewed and Authorized by: Isaac Hinson, P.W.S. Wetland Specialist Charlotte Storm Water Services Attachments 0 Pe;'— Darrin M. Peine, QEP Natural Resources Department Manager cc: Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office SHPO, Raleigh FIGURES • Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map • Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map • Figure 3 - 2010 Aerial Photograph • Figure 4 - Approximate Waters of the U.S. / Proposed Jurisdictional Impact Areas • Figure 5 - Site Design: Channel Segment 3 PPabln s O� w ti AA o A Norr ye ` re m Q' % aaFi - Ca .Tor s°e4eeRd 'rtr °q °SPP 16 T 8PP �... "ems Rq D - o pljtyhany Se O, 'ktnson Blvd - - 1 z I F or St 24 >> 51 ee�a f�D Charlotte 1`I' rn a S, hadotte�C�ouglas `� � tnt'I Airport O ! ��C F �0J�h 49 ttl4 0 N14d �° yQ e` ° 16 6 OJ Lo O 'Fib � Free dam � q y lb S F -� Shopton Rd %naissance 4a %i ° fd1Yh Rd Woodlawo 05 Park Goff �a t521', ^ay Rd Course D o` x 'de 1-n o�'yt 3y � SYvolaha q RunnyM Fart �ci m V/ Ak" Z nod fir' C 'IV,) a � pttdti 'P6 i 0 1 2 4 urh 0 Miles c 03 Park �atryrPw Ror i� Z nr Road ParF. REFERENCE: 1993 CHARLOTTE WEST [NC] 1:24,000 USGS QUAD SHEET MAP PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S &ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY me, NAVT FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Approximate Project Area o ina (Hong m 0 SCALE: 1 = 1 mile FIGURE NO. DATE: S &ME SITE VICINITY 08 -26 -13 it DRAWN BY: DDH PONDEROSA/ MARKLAND WWW.SMEINC.COM STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROJECT NO: 1357 -13 -023 ENGINEERING LICENSE NO: F -0176 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA r .� Lam':.: � .�/' ,� �� • -- t",:ar� N • Ab r „� •, 0. ` \\\\\\ •, t` - ,J� � � .. • • • •. _ ••'; yr, •a ,� 1Fd 1 t1+ • �i � ti • r �• � fry i' �� - ` � ��. t ,r'` . �• s/.•`� �� . �� + .: ZI 00 IL t +� �� `•y •r lam` �sy PL ' • • JJ4L •. 14 • • �1 y O • �r I ZI 0 1,000 2,000 Feet * VV . ` z REFERENCE: 1993 CHARLOTTE WEST [NC] 1:24,000 USGS QUAD SHEET MAPS s PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S &ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY N FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. ApprOXllll ate Project Area O Copyright: m - o SCALE: 1 __ 1'000 FIGURE NO. m DATE: _;.�-� S &ME USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 08 -26 -13 0 DRAWN BY: DDH PONDEROSA/ MARKLAND WWW.SMEINC.COM STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROJECT NO: L 1357 -13 -023 1 ENGINEERING LICENSE NO: F -0176 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA APPENDIX I Pre - Construction Notification O�OFW A r��F9QG b O < Office Use Only: Corps action ID no. DWQ project no. Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008 Page 1 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 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 1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number: 1 c. 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 In 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: Ponderosa /Markland Storm Drainage Improvements Project 2b. County: Mecklenburg 2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte 2d. Subdivision name: N/A 2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: N/A 3. Owner Information 3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Multiple Owners 3b. Deed Book and Page No. 3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable): N/A 3d. Street address: 3e. City, state, zip: 3f. Telephone no.: 3g. Fax no.: 3h. Email address: Page 1 of 12 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, PWS 4c. Business name (if applicable): Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) 4d. Street address: 600 East Fourth Street 4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202 4f. Telephone no.: 704 - 336 -4495 4g. Fax no.: 704- 336 -6586 4h. Email address: ihinson @charlottenc.gov 5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) 5a. Name: David Homans 5b. Business name (if applicable): S &ME, Inc. 5c. Street address: 9751 Southern Pine Blvd. 5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28273 5e. Telephone no.: 704 - 523 -4726 5f. Fax no.: 704- 525 -3953 5g. Email address: dhomans @smeinc.com Page 2 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version B. Project Information and Prior Project History 1. Property Identification 1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): Multiple Parcels 1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.21436 Longitude: - - 80.91307 (DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD) 1 c. Property size: In review area= —38 acres 2. Surface Waters 2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Taggart Creek proposed project: 2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Class C 2c. River basin: Lower Catawba (HUC 03050103) 3. Project Description 3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application: Project site east of the Norfolk Southern Railroad is made up of maintained high density single - family residences. Stream channels east of the tracks are all lined with riprap from bank to bank. West of the railroad tracks is dominated by mixed hardwood forest, both locally and in the general vicinity and stream channels were observed to be free flowing, intermittent, and of poor water quality. 3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: None. 3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 731 LF (Including riprap lined channel) 3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: 1) Upgrade the ageing and undersized storm water infrastructure to meet current city, state, and Norfolk Southern design standards, 2) alleviate residential structure and roadway flooding that has been occurring due to the undersized drainage infrastructure, and 3) minimize downstream impacts occurring to the receiving channel and adjacent sanitary sewer infrastructure 3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: City of Charlotte proposes to reshape and add step pool structures to 263 If of currently serviceable riprap -lined channel, replace and extend an existing 42" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culvert under Markland Drive with a 272 If 6'X 3' box culvert, install of 90 If of 36" steel pipe culvert parallel and adjacent to the existing 30' culvert under the railroad, and reshape and add toe armoring and plunge pool along 127 If of the downstream receiving channel. 4. Jurisdictional Determinations 4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / El Yes ®No El Unknown project (including all prior phases) in the past? Comments: 4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type El Preliminary El Final of determination was made? 4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company: . Name (if known): Other: 4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation. Page 3 of 12 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 12 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: No wetlands are located in the project area. 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) Channel S1 ❑ P ®T Reshaping / Channel Seg. 1 F1 PER ® Corps 8 148 Riprap ® INT ® DWQ Replacement S2 ® P ❑ T Culvert Extension Channel Seg. 1 ❑ PER ® INT ® Corps ® DWQ 8 30 Channel S3 ❑ P ®T Reshaping / Riprap Channel Seg. 2 F1 PER ® INT ® Corps ® DWQ 15 119 Replacement S4 ®P ❑ T Stilling Basin Channel Seg. 3 F1 PER ® Corps 6 12 Installation ® INT ® DWQ S5 ❑ P ® T Realignment / Toe Channel Seg. 3 F1 PER ® Corps 6 115 armoring ® INT ® DWQ S6 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps ❑ INT ❑ DWQ 3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 424 3i. Comments: S5 impacts are considered temporary as no riprap will be placed in the stream bed and the resulting channel Page 5 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version will maintain existing ecological functions. 4. Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below. 4a. Open water impact number — Permanent (P) or Temporary (T) 4b. Name of waterbody (if applicable) 4c. Type of impact 4d. Waterbody type 4e. Area of impact (acres) 01 ❑P ❑T 02 ❑P ❑T 03 ❑P ❑T 04 ❑P ❑T 4f. Total open water impacts 4g. Comments: No open waters are located within the project area. 5. Pond or Lake Construction If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below. 5a. Pond ID number 5b. Proposed use or purpose of pond 5c. Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d. Stream Impacts (feet) 5e. Upland (acres) Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded P1 P2 K Total 5g. Comments: 5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no: 5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): 5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): 5k. Method of construction: Page 6 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form. 6a. ❑ 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 re uired? B1 ❑P ❑T F-1 Yes ❑ No B2 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ No B3 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ No 6h. Total buffer impacts 6i. Comments: D. Impact Justification and Mitigation 1. Avoidance and Minimization 1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project. Impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and have been limited to the areas necessary meet current design standards and provide the necessary capacity to reduce upstream flooding risk. The current design was chosen as a result of a Downstream Impacts Analysis that was prepared for CMSWS to determine the best alternative for reducing upstream flood risk and minimizing impacts while generating no adverse downstream impact to FEMA floodways. Riprap stilling basins have been designed to the minimum size recommended by storm water construction guidelines to effectively dissipate energy. Riprap armoring along Channel Segment 3 will be limited to armoring the toe of the slope which is the minimum amount required to maintain channel stability. The majority of project goals will be addressed through modifications to currently impacted Channel Sections (1 and 2).. 1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques. To prevent sedimentation of downstream waters, construction will be conducted in the dry through the use of rock check dams and pump - arounds. Excess material will be removed to a high ground disposal area. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices will be implemented to meet water quality turbidity standards. Best Management Practices employed for the project will be in compliance with the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual," and the local governing authority. Sediment and erosion control measures placed in waters will be removed and the original grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources has released the project. Impacts have been avoided and minimized, and appropriate measures will be taken during construction to allow flow and circulation patterns of waters of the U.S. to remain unaffected. After construction, disturbed areas will be seeded and restored. 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): ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps ❑ Mitigation bank 2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this El Payment to in -lieu fee program project? ❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation Page 7 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 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. 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 12 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: 2. Stormwater Management Plan 2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A % 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 proposed project is a municipal maintenance project. 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? City of Charlotte ❑ 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 ❑ 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 12 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. The project is not considered a "growth- inducing" project as it is primarily maintanence, restoration and replacement of existing infrastructure. All additional infrastructure (sidewalks) are designed to address existing pedestrian traffic. The current project area is already fully built -out and therefore no additional growth could be expected. 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 proposed project will not generate wastewater. Page 10 of 12 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 ❑ Yes H No habitat? 5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ❑ Yes H No impacts? F-1 Raleigh 5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. H Asheville 5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? A copy of this application will be provided to the USFWS - Asheville Field Office. The project area and vicinity are not located in a Designated Critical Habitat. Review of Element Occurrences on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Geographic Information Systems (GIS) files found that there were no known extant occurences of federally threatened or endangered species within a 1 -mile radius of the proposed project. Field review did not idicate the presence of any habitat appropriate for federally protected species listed for Mecklenburg County. 6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes H No 6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? hftp://ocean.floridamarine.org/efh_coral/ims/viewer.htm 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 H 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? A copy of this application will be provided to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). A review of the HPOWEB GIS Service indicated that there were no properties currently listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within a one mile radius of the project.. 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? ❑ Yes H No 8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: 8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? The proposed project will be constructed outside of the 100 -year FEMA floodplain. The project has been specifically designed to not impact downstream FEMA floodplains. Isaac Hinson, PWS 9.X.2013 Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Date Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.) Page 11 of 12 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version Page 12 of 12 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version APPENDIX II Site Photographs 4-.; View looking upstream along Channel Segment 1, a 2 View of the culvert outfall at the upstream end of currently serviceable riprap lined channel. Channel Segment 2, a currently serviceable riprap lined channel. " n View of looking downstream along the riprap -lined Channel Segment 2. t; View of looking upstream at Channel Segment 3 in the area where channel modifications are proposed View of the existing headwall for the culvert under the railroad, where it outfalls into Channel Segment 3. View of looking downstream at the narrow channel g downstream of the proposed impacts on Channel 1 Segment 3. Taken by: DDH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Ponderosa / Markland Storm Drainage Checked by: DMP Improvement Project Date Taken: 8.22.2013 Charlotte, North Carolina Project No.: 1357 -13 -023 Photo Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX III • Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form 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 L• BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:ASHEVILLE FIELD REGULATORY OFFICE C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: PONDEROSA /MARKLAND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT State:NORTH CAROLINA County/parish/borough: MECKLENBURG City: CHARLOTTE Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.21436° 1, Long. 80.91307° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: UT TO TAGGART CREEK Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: SUGAR CREEK Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): LOWER CATAWBA (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: Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION IL• SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There r "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 M "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): ' 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: — 280 linear feet: 3 -8 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 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: A DITCH DRAINING OFF OF THE NORFOLK SOUTHERN RIGHT -OF -WAY WHICH CROSSED THE PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD SOUTH OF THE PROJECT AREA WAS DETERMINED TO LACK HYDRIC SOILS AND AN OHWM, AND THUS WAS NOT CONSIDERED JURISDICTIONAL. ' 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 months). s Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF. 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 IILA.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 IH.D.I.; otherwise, see Section HLB 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 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 HLD.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 IILB.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IILB.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below. 1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: 42.5M Drainage area: 42.5 Average annual rainfall: 43 inches Average annual snowfall: 6 inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ® Tributary flows through I tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are 5 river miles from TNW Project waters are 1 river miles from RPW. Project waters are 2- aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are 1 (or less] aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNWs: U.T. TO TAGGART CREEK -> TAGGART CREEK -> SUGAR CREEK. Tributary stream order, if known: FIRST. 4 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 apps Tributary is: ® Natural ❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain: ❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: 3 feet Average depth: 0.5 feet Average side slopes: �' less). 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: FAIRLY STABLE, EXESSIVE AGGRADATION. Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes. Explain: LIMITED PRESENCE DUE TO LIMITED FLOW. Tributary geometry: Preandering Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 3 % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: - Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Describe flow regime: LIKELY FLOW DURING WET SEASONS AND FOLLOWING RAINS. Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Characteristics: Subsurface flow: -. 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 ® the presence of litter and debris ® changes in the character of soil ® destruction of terrestrial vegetation ❑ shelving ® the presence of wrack line ® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ❑ sediment sorting ® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ® scour • sediment deposition ❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events • water staining ❑ abrupt change in plant community ❑ other (list): ❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ 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: POTENTIAL FOR ROAD POLLUTANTS; EXCESSIVE REFUSE/LITER WAS DEPOSITED IN THE CHANNEL. 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 OHWM 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): MIXED HARDWOOD. ❑ 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: HABITAT FOR AQUATIC LIFE ADAPTED TO INTERMITTENT CONDITIONS. 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: &" Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Fck 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 river miles from TNW. Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the � floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil fihn 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 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: 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 IILD: 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 IILD: 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 Section IILD: 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: 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: THE UT OF TAGGART CREEK POSSESSED GEOMORPHIC FEATURES CONSISTENT WITH A SEASONALLY FLOWING (INTERMITTENT) CHANNEL (SEE ATTACHED NC DWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORM, SCORE = 29.5). FLOW WAS NOT CONTINUOUS FOLLOWING A VERY WET SEASON AND RECENT RAIN, THEREFORE INTERMITTENT CONDITIONS WERE SUSPECTED. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ® Tributary waters: — 280 linear feet 3 -8 width (ft). ❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Non -RPWs8 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 IILC. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): Q 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. Q Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. Q 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 I1I.13 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. 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. 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. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. 0 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. ❑ 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: 'See Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.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. 0 Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): EJ 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: N 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 udgment (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): EJ 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: S &ME, INC. ® 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: 1993 CHARLOTTE WEST [NC] 1:24,000 QUAD SHEET (FIGURE 2). ❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: ❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s): ❑ FEMA /FIRM maps: ❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) ® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): 2010 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (FIGURE 3). or ® Other (Name & Date): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (8 -22- 2013). ❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: ❑ Applicable /supporting case law: ❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature: ❑ Other information (please specify): B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: APPENDIX IV Wetland Determination Data Forms for Upland A N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Stream Identification Form WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project /Site: Ponderosa /Markland Storm Drainage Improvements City /County: Mecklenburg County Sampling Date: $22.2013 Applicant /owner: Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services State: NC Sampling Point: Upland A Investigator(s): D. David Homans Section, Township, Range: Charlotte lain o Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodp Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (k): ° ° Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MRLA 136 Lat: 35.21429 Long: -80.91302 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 -7% slopes NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ 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 ✓ ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: 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) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) — Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (1316) 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 (D3) Water- Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Upland A US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Liquidambar styraciflua 40 YES FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 2 Fraxinus amencana 30 YES FACU 3 Acer rubrum 15 NO FAC 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A /B) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 8 OBL species x 1 = 85 = Total Cover Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species x 2 = 1 Ligustrum sinense 35 YES FACU FAC species 65 x 3 = 195 FACU species 75 x 4 = 300 UPL species 85 x 5 = 425 Column Totals: 225 (A) 920 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.09 2 Elaeagnus angustifolia 10 NO FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is < -3.0' 10. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 51 45 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Hedera helix 85 YES UPL - 2 Toxicodendron radicans 10 NO FAC Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. 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 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 10. Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless 11. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 95 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5 Vegetation / 6. Present? Yes No 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Upland A 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' Lo CZ Texture Remarks 0 -4 10 YR 4/3 100 fine sandy loam 4 -16+ 10 YR 5/6 100 fine sandy loam '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 Soils3: 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) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ 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) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: 8.22.2013 Project /Site: U.T. to Taggard Creek Latitude: 35.21436 Evaluator: D. David Homans County: Mecklenburg Longitude: - 80.91307 Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent 2 9.5 Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30" 2 ) 3 A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 17.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 ) 3 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool sequence 0 1 Q2 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 5. Active /relict floodplain 0 10 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3Q 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3Q 8. Headcuts 0 1Q 2 3 9. Grade control 0 CD 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 1 0.5 1 1.5 11. Second or greater order channel o®-- Yes = 3 a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 5.5 ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 10 2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria OQ 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 0 1 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 a 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 (ED 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? o = Yes = 3 C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.5 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1Q 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3Q 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 Q 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks QO 1 2 3 22. Fish OQ 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish OQ 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0 0.5 10 1.5 25. Algae 0 ED 1 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: Macrobenthos dominated by Oligochaetes and other species not indicative of perennial flow. Sketch: APPENDIX V Design Plans