20110229 Ver 2_401 Application_20130913

W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
September 10, 2013
Mr. Ian McMillan
NC DENR
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
i-
►► - oaa - q v�,.
Subject: Pre- Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 27
and Water Quality Certification No. 3885
Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement Project (Continuation)
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Mr. McMillan:
In 2011, Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services began construction of the Little Sugar Creek
Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement Project along 1,137 linear feet of Little Sugar Creek between
East 36th Street and the Southern Rail Line (see attached figures). Construction involved the
installation of in- stream boulder structures to improve habitat and provide grade control, excavation
of a floodplain bench, and stabilization of stream banks with native vegetation. The majority of the
project was constructed however a portion of work was delayed by easement acquisition. The site
was stabilized and certifications (DWQ #11 -0229) and permits ( USACE Action ID: 2011 - 00534) expired.
At this time easement acquisition has been completed. The remaining construction includes
enhancement activities between Stations 101 +50 and 104 +00 on the attached plan set.
Please find enclosed five copies of our PCN package for the subject project. We have included the
following supporting data:
• existing conditions and design summary,
• PCN form,
• vicinity, USGS, soil, and site maps,
• DWQ and USACE stream and wetland data forms,
• Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms,
• previously approved 401 & 404 permits (including approved Jurisdictional Determination)
• agency correspondence
• photo log, and
• 11" x 17" copy of the Final plan set.
This same information has been submitted to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office of the US Army
Corps of Engineers. If you have any questions, please call me at (704) 332 -7754.
Wddlands Enlyneenng. Inc • 1430 South hLnt Sint ♦ Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203
7SE P 1 2 2013 i

w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Sincerely, R
Ian Eckardt
Environmental Scientist
- -- -- t'A
EncJGsure- --
cc: Ms. Crystal Taylor, Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services
Wddlanda Eng —ring, Inc • 1430 SomL ALm SI-t ♦ Swi, 104 ♦ c6dwic. NC 28203

ot WA L 9 G
0
o �
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 ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number. No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number.
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
[]Yes ® No
Id. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. 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 in4ieu 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 1h
below.
❑ Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Little Sugar Creek at Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement Project
2b. County:
Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Mecklenburg County
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
21525- 274,15530 -930, 21619 -958, 21704 -320, 21704 -310, 21704-343,22916-914,
24079-50,23182-936
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
600 East Fourth Street, 11"' Floor
3e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC, 28202 -2816
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

OR
4. Applicant Information (ff different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: local government agency
4b. Name:
Crystal Taylor, PE, CFM
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services
4d. Street address:
700 N. Tryon Street — Basement Level
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202
4f. Telephone no.:
704336 -7342
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
j [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (ff applicable)
5a. Name:
Ian Eckardt
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5c. Street address:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28203
5e. Telephone no.:
704332 -7754
5f. Fax no.:
704332 -3306
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 11

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
08303116, 08303117, 08303118, 08303119, 08303119,
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
08303120, 08303121, 08303122, 08303123, 08303124,
08303124, 08303125, 08303126, 08303127, 08303128,
08303136, 08303137, 08303138
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.2504820 Longitude: 80.8081940
1c. Property size:
N/A linear project 1,137 linear feet
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Little Sugar Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water.
Class C
2c. River basin:
Catawba 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:
The project is located in an urbanized, fully developed area of the city of Charlotte. Land uses adjacent to the project
limits of Little Sugar Creek are a combination of commercial and industrial developments along recently cleared open
areas. The area immediately adjacent to the Derita Branch and Little Sugar Creek confluence is forested.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
No jurisdictional wetland areas exist within the project corridor.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 1,230 linear feet within the project corridor, which includes a small downstream portion of Derita Branch.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The primary goal for the project is to reclaim the natural and beneficial functions of the stream channel and portions of the
floodplain within Little Sugar Creek.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This is a continuation of a previously permitted stream enhancement project. The majority of the project was constructed
however work involving one parcel was delayed by easement acquisition. The remaining construction work involves
excavation of riffle and pool bedform features and installation of in- stream structures between Stations 101 +50 and
101 +90, as well as excavation of floodplain bench, bank grading, and planting bank slopes with native riparian species
from Station 101 +50 to 104 +00. A trackhoe will be used for in -stream work.
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?
Name (if known): Matt Jenkins, PWS — Wildiands
Agency /Consultant Company:
Engineering, Inc.
Other.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Request for Jurisdictional Determination was approved by Steve Chapin of the USACE on April 20, 2011. A copy of the
approved Jurisdictional Determination is Included with the permit package (Action ID: 2011 - 00534).
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
S. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
E) Yes ❑ No Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to °help file" instructions.
Applications for 401 Water Quality Certification and a Nationwide Permit Number 27 were applied for on March 9, 2011
for the temporary Impact of 1,127 LF of channel for stream enhancement purposes. 401 Water Quality Certification
(DWQ# 11 -0229) was issued on April 24, 2011. 404 approval for a Nationwide Permit Number 27 (Action ID: 2011-
00534) was issued April 20, 2011. Copies of the previously approved certification and permit are Included in this PCN
submittal.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11

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
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P [IT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P [IT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
[I Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
29. 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 -
Permanent (P) or
(PER) or
intermittent
(Corps - 404, 10
DWQ — non -404
stream
width
length
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 []POT
Enhancement
Little Sugar Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
12
350
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 []POT
❑ 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
350
3i. Comments: The remaining construction work involves approximately 350 LF of stream impacts for temporary enhancement
activities.
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

r � �
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 Indl ually 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
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 []P [IT
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water Impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond 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
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
number
of pond
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 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
Impact
required?
❑Yes
B1 ❑P ❑T
❑ No
❑ Yes
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
❑Yes
B3 []P [IT
❑ No
6h. Total buffer Impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project constitutes a positive impact, enhancing and restoring stream function and habitat by improving bed features
In the streams and establishing flood storage. Biodegradable coir fiber matting will be used to stabilize the newly graded
banks.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
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?
❑ 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 In4lou 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
Sa. 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

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?
1b. 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?
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This project constitutes a positive impact
to the function and habitat of the existing stream channel. Impervious coverage will not be increased as a result of the
construction of this 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?
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other.
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other.
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof -of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. 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

• .i
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federallstate) land?
1b. 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)?
1c. 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 Welland Rules (15A NCAC 21-1.0500), Isolated
Welland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Weiland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 26.0200)?
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.
This is a stream enhancement project and will not cause an Increase in development nor will it negatively impact
downstream water quality.
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
❑Yes 10 No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts? and NCDENR Natural Heritage Program
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would Impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The NCDENR Natural Heritage Program was also contacted regarding the presence of Endangered Species or Critical
Habitat within the project corridor. No record of rare species, significant natural communities, natural heritage areas, or
conservation managed areas were found at the site nor within a mile of the project (see enclosed letter). Additionally, no
protected species or potential habitat were observed within the project corridor during a pedestrian survey.
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?
NCDENR
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?
The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the presence of historic properties or cultural
resources within the project corridor. It was determined by SHPO that no historic resources would be affected by the
project (see enclosed letter).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year fioodplain?
TIRYes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: A Floodplain Development Permit was obtained from Mecklenburg
County, a Cooperating Technical Partner with FEMA with authority to approve fioodplain Impacts. The permit is set to
expire September 16, 2013 and an extension is being requested. A full hydraulic modeling study was be performed to
ensure that the project will not worsen 100 -year hood conditions at any location on Little Sugar Creek.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the fioodplain determination? FIRM Panel 4555 & 4565, Map Numbers 3710455500J
& 3710456500J (respectively), effective date 302009
Crystal Taylor
7
A licantl ent's Printed Name
PP
' licant/A nt's Signature ut...
(Agent's signature l�plid only M � letter from
D!
authortzatlon the appYant
Is rovided.
Page 11 of 11

Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project
Cullman Avenue
Existing Conditions and Design Summary
Wildlands Engineering is working with LandDesign, Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services,
and Mecklenburg County Parks & Recreation to develop construction documents for a stream
enhancement project in Charlotte, NC on Little Sugar Creek along Cullman Avenue. This
memorandum provides a summary of the following:
1. watershed characteristics,
2. existing geomorphic conditions, and
3. proposed design parameters for the project reach.
1. Watershed & Land Use
The project reach is located in central Mecklenburg County just north of uptown Charlotte as
shown on the attached Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The headwaters of Little Sugar Creek drain the
area east of I -77 and south of I -85 as shown on the Vicinity Map and the attached USGS
Topographic Map (Figure 2). The watershed drainage area of Little Sugar Creek measures 3.4
square miles at the downstream confluence with Derita Branch. The Derita Branch watershed adds
an additional 2.2 square miles of drainage area to the lower 90 linear feet (LF) of the project area.
Downstream of the project site, Little Sugar Creek flows south through Mecklenburg County to
join Sugar Creek and then into the Catawba River east of Rock Hill, SC. The project site is located
in the Catawba River Basin, HUC 03050103.
The Little Sugar Creek watershed is located in a highly developed urban setting; approximately
80% of the land in the watershed has been developed. Approximately 43% of the land surface is
impervious. The land uses within the watershed include:
• residential (47 0/6),
• industrial (25 0/6),
• commercial (19 0/6),
• woods (7 0/6), and
• institutional (2 %).
The City of Charlotte lies in the Charlotte Belt, which is a geologic zone comprised of
predominantly metavolcanic and plutonic rock types. The geology of the project area is Devonian
and Ordovician age granodiorite rock. The granodiorite is medium - grained, massive to weakly
foliated, and is comprised mainly of plagioclase and quartz (Goldsmith, 1984).
As shown on the attached Soils Map (Figure 3), the soils found within the project site include
Urban land complex (Ur) and adjacent pockets of Monacan soils (MO and MS). Urban soils are
typically areas that have been greatly disturbed and are covered with impervious structures
including buildings, parking lots, and roads. Monacan soils are typically deep and somewhat
poorly- drained soils consisting of loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock.
Monacan is a frequently flooded soil and is listed on the State Hydric Soils List as having
inclusions of hydric soils.
Wildiands Engineering, Inc. Page 1
Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project

2. Existing Geomorphic Conditions
Stream Conditions
Little Sugar Creek has historically been straightened and dredged in an attempt to control flooding
and to accommodate development. The creek banks along this reach have been rip rapped to
reduce erosion. Vegetation has been actively managed by cutting and spraying, particularly in
areas within the Duke Power overhead electric right -of -way.
The project reach of Little Sugar Creek has been listed on the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality's ( NCDWQ) 303(d) list since 1998. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have
impaired uses. The NCDWQ 303(d) list includes violations of impaired biological integrity, high
fecal coliform concentrations, turbidity, and water column mercury for Little Sugar Creek.
The project extents are shown on the attached Site Map (Figure 4). The project includes 1,137 LF
of Little Sugar Creek located between East 36d' Street and the Southern Railways bridge. This
reach currently classifies as a Rosgen G4c/F5 channel. The channel substrate is dominated by
coarse gravel and coarse sand sediment characteristic of an urban watershed. An abundance of
riprap from prior bank stabilization work was also found in the creek bed. An absolute Rosgen
stream classification of urban streams such as Little Sugar Creek is difficult due to historical
channel modification and the limited ability of the channel to freely adjust to channel- forming
flow.
Table 1 summarizes the existing geomorphic conditions of the project reach. Overall, the channel
is over wide in many locations as evidenced by mid - channel bars, particularly downstream near the
confluence with Derita Branch. These bars are located immediately upstream of the Southern
Railways bridge at the downstream end of the project reach. Bankfull widths along Little Sugar
Creek range from 21.5 to 22.8 feet with width-to -depth ratios of 8.8 to 12.7. The bank height ratio
is high throughout the project reach, ranging from 2.4 to 3.2, indicating an incised condition with a
channel separated from its floodplain. Large portions of the stream bank have been heavily
armored including an approximately 155 LF gabion wall along the left bank immediately
downstream of the East 36d' Street bridge. Additional armoring includes shotcrete pads along the
right bank that provide support to the two adjacent Duke Power overhead electric towers. The
project reach consists of long flat pins, punctuated by a few shallow riffle structures. Few shallow
well - formed pools were found along the project reach. The banks are heavily rip rapped and
vegetated with herbaceous grass species and sparse immature hardwood tree species. A minimal
amount of invasive species exist within the project area due to past treatment.
Bankfull Indicators
The bankfull stage indicator along the Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue Reach identified in the
field was a break in slope on a flat depositional feature. This indicator is consistent with other NC
urban Piedmont streams. Bankfull data for the project reach was compared with the NC Piedmont
regional curve. The project's riffle cross - sectional areas (X 1 and X4) plot just above and below the
NC piedmont rural regional curve data within the scatter of the curve data. This data location
indicates that bankfull stage was adequately selected within acceptable limits.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 2
Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project

The downstream riffle cross - section (X4) plots slightly higher above the NC piedmont rural curve.
This riffle is located at a point in the channel that is over -wide and where mid - channel bar
formation is occurring. The slightly larger cross - sectional area and the bar formation indicate that
this section is not adequately conveying the channel's sediment load. The surveyed cross - sections
overlaid with the NC regional curve are shown in the attached Figure 5.
Manning's equation was used to calculate an approximate bankfull discharge of 200 cfs using the
cross - sectional area and overall channel slope for the project reach. This approximate bankfull
discharge falls just below the NC piedmont rural regional curve, shown in the attached Figure 5.
3. Design Parameters
The Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue stream enhancement project includes Rosgen Priority
2/3 stream enhancement and development of one water quality best management practice (BMP).
Onsite constraints to the stream design include a parallel sewer line along the left bank, a parallel
overhead transmission line along the right bank, and culverts at the upstream and downstream
extents of the project. Like many urban stream systems, the urban constraints at Little Sugar Creek
artificially pinch the stream valley and eliminate the potential for re- creation of broad meander
geometry. A B4 /5c stream type, which dissipates energy vertically instead of laterally, is the
selected design approach for this confined system. Bankfull benches are proposed along the
majority of this reach to provide bankfull floodplain access. In -stream boulder structures are
proposed to encourage proper bedform formation, create re- aeration points, and divert in -stream
flows so that planted bank vegetation has time to establish. A bioretention BMP is proposed in the
left floodplain of Little Sugar Creek. The BMP will intercept concentrated storm water that
currently flows untreated directly into the stream. Upon completion of the project, a native riparian
buffer will be established along the project corridor. Proposed stream design parameters are
summarized in Table 2.
Water quality objectives associated with this project include decreased nutrient and pollutant levels
in storm flows achieved by installing the BMP and filtering in -stream flood flows through restored
floodplain areas; decreased stream water temperatures achieved by re- planting vegetation along the
stream for shade; and increased dissolved oxygen concentrations through creating in- stream re-
aeration points (structures) and developing deep pool zones. Ecological objectives include creating
in -stream habitat through structure placement, establishing woody vegetation along the stream
banks, and diversifying the bed form; creating terrestrial habitat through invasive species removal
and re- establishing a native buffer along the riparian corridor; and decreasing channel velocities by
increasing channel roughness with bank vegetation and reconnecting the stream to a floodplain
through benching.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3
Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project

Table 1. Existing Geomorphic Parameters
Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement Project
Notation
Units
min max
stream type
G4c / F5
drainage am
DA
sq mi
332 1
344
NC Rural Regional Curve
212
217
NFF regression
313
321
USGS extrapolation
153
276
Mannings
1
149
231
bankfull design discharge
QW I
c s
200
Cross-Section Features
bankfull cross - sectional area
Am
SF
410
520
average velocity during bankfull event
vbkf
fps
38
—215
49
width at bankfull
WW
eet
22.8
maximum devth at bankfull
eet
31
32
mean deyth at bankfull
—re—et—
19
23
bankf ill width to depth ratio
W
88
127
d ratio
14
16
low bank height
75
10.2
bank height ratio
BHR
24
32
floodmone area width
w
eet 1
38
38
entrenchment ratio
ER
1
1.7 1
1.8
Sinuosity
valley slo
foot
00033
channel slope
.hmmei I
teev toot
00032
sinuosity
K 1
1.0
Riffle Features
nffle slope
nM
reWTbot
0 001 1
0 038
nffle slove ratio
.bn1
04 1
120
Pool Features
pool slope
feet/ foot
00000
00026
pool slove ratio
d—.d
00
0.8
pool-to-pool svacing
L_
feet
23
130
pool spacing ratio
ww
1 1
60
maximum pool depth at bankfWl
1
feet
326
374
pool depth ratio
17
20
pool width at bankfull
w 1
I eet
18 8
21 1
nool width ratio
w WwW
0.9
09
1 cross - sectional area at bankfull
1
39.5
465
pool area ratio
09
i 10
Pattern Features
belt width
W MI
feet
44
meander width mho
wbb W W
1.9
20
meander length
eet
92
234
meander length ratio
W b1a
43
103
radius of curvature
R.
feet
81.0
1970
radius of curvature ratio
W bil
38
86
Sediment
Particle Size Distribution from Riffle 100 -Count
Xl
X4
so
c.—mm
c..msma
16
mm
11.0
03
35
mm
204
06
w
mm
273
08
mm
640
78
mm
1701
237
loo
mm
2560
320
Particle Size Distribution from Subjpavem ent Analysis
Sub -pavement
d16
mm
32
06
35
mm
106
10
so
mm
166
17
&
mm
360
90
mm
497
188
mm
640
45.0
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Count
16
mm
0.1
35
mm
.07
w
mm
28
>a
mm
329
d9s
mm
1185
MM
2560

Table 2. Stream Design Parameters
Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement Project
N /A': Infrastructure constraints prevent the design of natural channel pattern.
Notation
Units
min
I max
stream type
C4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
3.40
bankf ill design discharge
Qbkf
c s
200
Cross - Section Features
bankfull cross - sectional area
Abkf
SF
38.8
averse velocity during bankfidi event
Vbkf
S
5.2
width at bankfull
wbkf
Feet
23.0
maximum depth at bankf ill
d..
eet
2.5
mean depth at bankf ill
dbkf
eet
1.7
bankfull width to depth ratio
wbk bkf
13.7
depth ratio
. bkf
1.5
bank height ratio
BHR
1.0
flood prone area width
w
eet
51+
entrenchment ratio
ER
1
1 2.2+
Sinuosity
valley sloe
SVaII
feet/ foot
0.0055
channel sloe
Scha=i
cot
0.0045
sinuositv
K
1.2
Riffle Features
riffle sloe
S„ f e
feet/ foot
0.018
0.026
riffle slope ratio
Stn Scbw=i
4.0
5.8
Pool Features
col sloe
S DWI
fee foot
0.0000
0.0000
col slope ratio
S Soh...
0.0
0.0
pool-to-pool spacing
L
feet
38
114
ool sDacine ratio
L wbkf
1.7
5.0
maximum pool depth at bankfull
d,.01
eet
3.50
4.50
col de th ratio
i bkf
2.1
2.7
1 width at bankfull
WOMI
feet
30.5
35.0
col width ratio
w 1 wbkf
1.3 1
1.5
col cross - sectional area at bankf ill
A i
SF
64+
col area ratio
A i Abkf
1.7+
Pattern Features
belt width
wbIt
feet
l
meander width ratio
wbl wbkf
'
meander length
Lm
eet
l
meander length ratio
Lm wbkf
'
radius of curvature
&
eet
i
radius of curvature ratio
wbkf
'
N /A': Infrastructure constraints prevent the design of natural channel pattern.

Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue
Catawba River Basin (03050103)
WILDLANDS I 0.I 1.5 Miles
i
ENGINEERING I Mecklenburg County, NC

Project Reach `
Streams
® Project Watersheds
Figure 2. Watershed Map
%ZFAV Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue
Catawba River Basin (03050103)
W I L D L A N D S 0 1 ,500 3,000 Feet
I i I Mecklenburg County, NC
ENGINEERING

Figure 3. Soils Map
Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue
Catawba River Basin (03050103)
W I L D L A N D S o 350 goo Feet
i I Mecklenburg County, NC
ENGINEERING

Figure 4. Site Map
4WW Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue
Catawba River Basin (03050103)
WILDLANDS 0 75 150 Feet
E N G I N E E R I N G I 1 I Mecklenburg County, NC

North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Area
1111
1000
v
v
d
E,
V
t
(,1
G 100
a
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Discharge
0.1 1 10 100
Drainage Area (square miles)
1000
• Rural Data • Urban Data • LSC Cullman Power (Rural Data) Power (Urban Data)
kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 5. Regional Curve Data
Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue
Catawba River Basin (03050103)
Mecklenburg County, NC
lillMEIER
Mom
M
OMNI
w�■weew•ww,w■r
�w��:�iw
.Uiil
■�w�w
MEN
■ee
milli
■
:
9�I�l0i�ii�l�m��l�
®101Y1
■ww�w�w
■eew��w�.�s
11
„
tllllllllllllllll ■IIIIIIIIIII,III■tl
■tall
■
■mop
�w•w��
■�����w�r�����w�N�m\
1 •
��
0E
MEII
M10NIN
1II
■■M111
1111
1000
v
v
d
E,
V
t
(,1
G 100
a
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Discharge
0.1 1 10 100
Drainage Area (square miles)
1000
• Rural Data • Urban Data • LSC Cullman Power (Rural Data) Power (Urban Data)
kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 5. Regional Curve Data
Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue
Catawba River Basin (03050103)
Mecklenburg County, NC

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 2 /0 �0 %�
ProjectfSite:L'#/p, Sr Cc. �,.�
Latitude: SS 110 q82 •
Evaluator. /L%L
County: A46L!
Longitude: 'FQ. X6, l%T V
Total Points:
Steam is at lbast temrlltent
Stream Determination (cI#5Won4,
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
Other L; At S am Citt k
Quad Name:
Ha 19 or rennlal If x 30'
nnial
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalwag
e.g. SC
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = W -S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalwag
CO)
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Ac Welrefict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
W
3
8. HeadcuLs
1.5
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
I No = 0
Yes 3
anmam ancnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Wdroloov (Subtotal = 9..5' 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
Q
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
IMQ
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
Q-0
20. Macxobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
1LVM;1181 N18 Mt-IM siz-e] F1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
QV
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macxobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
•perenrdal streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: l0 Zero
Prolect/Site:�,A (� - (�,.��
Latitude: MSS°
Evaluator. ML J
County: Ile `L6 Lele
Longitude: so. F10�'r
Total Points:
Stream 1s at least
�
Stream Determination (circJg Aojj_
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
Other D a .-& &-WA
Quad Name:
ff? 30tem
ffa 19 or renn/a1 tIa 30'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
e.g.
$GP.2
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =J /
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
M
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, stepl=l,
sequence
0
1
(�
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/refict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley,
0
65
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes 3
artmoal ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Wdroloov (Subtotal= 9 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
NT
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil-basW evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = (0 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Welland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Otter = 0
•perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Ale s.AlL !r.Walz Q c. mftcrb s og A's 1.
Sketch:

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Little Sugar Creek (Perennial RPW)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET A F
1. Applicant's Name: MCSWS '2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/10/10 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:00 am
5. Name of Stream: Little Sugar Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba 03050103
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 5.6 sq. miles 8. Stream Order: Third
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 300 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Charlotte, head north on North Tryon
Street for approximately 2.7 miles. Turn right onto East 36h Street and travel approximately 0.2 mile: turn right onto Cullman
Avenue.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.250482 °. W 80.808194°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 24 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny. 35°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? Q NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? Q NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 50 % Residential 11 % Commercial 26 % Industrial % Agricultural
12 %o Forested _% Cleared / Logged 1 % Other ( institutional )
21. Bankfull Width: 12 -15 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 10 -12 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 1094 _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight _Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 40 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCPI — Little Sugar Creek (Perennial RPW)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
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
0
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max poi nts
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)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
U
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
4
y,
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
�i
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
2
CIO
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max ints
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max ints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
0
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
3
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
1
>4
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
�
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
3
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
1
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
little or no habitat = 0• fi-equent, frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
0
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
04
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
�
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
40
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 - Derita Branch (Perennial RPW)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Alp
1. Applicant's Name: MCSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/10/10 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:00 am
5. Name of Stream: Derita Branch 6. River Basin: Catawba 03050103
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 2.2 sq. miles 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 If 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Charlotte, head north on North Tryon
Street for approximately 2.7 miles. Turn right onto East 36h Street and travel approximately 0.2 mile: turn right onto Cullman
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.250085 °. W 80.810285°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 24 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 351
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0 NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? G NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 50 % Residential 11 % Commercial 26 % Industrial _% Agricultural
12 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged 1 % Other ( institutional 1
21. Bankfull Width: 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank):
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight _Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 38 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 — Derita Branch (Perennial RPW)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
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
0
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max poi nts
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
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 po ints
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
V
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
4
y,
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max oints
�i
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
1
p"
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max ints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
extensive deposition-- 0• little or no sediment = max oints
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
1
fine homogenous = 0• laze diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
1
>4
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max po ints
�
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
0.4
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
2
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
0
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
0.4
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
0*
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
38
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Projewsite: Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue City /County: Charlotte/ Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 2/10/10
Applicant/Owner: Mecklenburg County State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Charlotte Township 1
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Let: 35.250330 N Long: 80.809615° W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Ur - Urban land 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:
Area is located within a Duke Energy right -of -way; vegetation is significantly maintained. Area is a
small floodplain depression exhibiting minor inundation from rainfall within past 24 hours.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required• check
all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (A1) _
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muds Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes '' No
Depth (inches): 1 -2"
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:
Small floodplain depression exhibited minor inundation (1 -2 ") from
past 24 hour rainfall event.
Subsurface soil (top 12 ") exhibited little to no saturation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: P1
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3V
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
Absolute Dominant Indicator
) ° Cover Species? Status
2 Yes FAC
Dominance Test worlmneet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80%
(A/B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1S ) FACW species x2=
1 Ligustrum sinense 60 Yes FAC FAC species x 3 =
2 Rubus argutus 20 Yes FACU FACU species x4=
3, UPL species x5=
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
7.
8
9.
10.
80
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'
1 Microstegium vimineum 75
2
3.
4.
5.
6. _
7.
8
9.
10. _
11
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3V
1. Lonicera japonica
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
75
= Total Cover
Yes FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
= Total Cover Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
30 Yes FAC
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
30 = Total Cover
Yes ✓ No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation is heavily maintained; area is located within a Duke Energy right -of -way.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: DPI
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' Lod'
Texture Remarks
0-12 5YR 5/3 90
5YR 4/6 10 C PL
silt loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains.
21-ocation: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147,148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (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)
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 — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
ProjecUSite: Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue City /County: Charlotte/ Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 2/10/10
Applicant/Owner: Mecklenburg County State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Charlotte Township 1
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRAV MLRA 136 Let: 35.25033° N Long: 80.809615° W Datum:
ji. Soil Map Unit Name- Ur - Urban land 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 r✓ 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 aooiv)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (814)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0)
_ 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 (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ 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 — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1 Liquidambar styreciflua
2 Platanus occidentalis
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sampling Point: DP2
Absolute Dominant Indicator
° Cover Species? Status
40 Yes FAC
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80%
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
10 Yes FACW
20
Yes FACU
3 Ligustrum lucidum
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size- 15'
1 Ligustrum sinense
50
)
20
=Total Cover
Yes FAC
2. Rubus argutus
20
Yes FACU
3 Ligustrum lucidum
5
No -
4.
UPL species
x5=
5
(A) (B)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' )
1.
45
= Total Cover
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1. Lonicera japonica
)
10
= Total Cover
Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Total % Cover of:
Multiohr by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP2
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 Loci Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 3/3 100
4 -12 5YR 4/6 100
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147,148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (178)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 10, 2010
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue, Charlotte, NC - Derita
Branch
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.250482° N, Long. 80.808194° �.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Sugar Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Sugar Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas istare available upon request.,
Check if other sites (e.g., offshe 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):
MI Office (Desk) Determination. Date: February 10, 2010
Field Determination. Date(s): February 10, 2010
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are na "navigable waters ojthe 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 KR "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): r
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: —100 linear feet: 6-8 width (ft) and/or 0.02 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: _ 987 Delineation Manua
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waterstwetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e g , typically 3 months)
' 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 Rapwims 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 waterbodyi is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: ick Lis
Drainage area Pick Lis
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through ick Lis tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are ick Lis river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Fick Lisl river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Fick Lisl aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick Lis aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e g, tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: ick Lis
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: P ick Lis
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: ick Lis
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: ick Lis
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: ick Lis Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ick Lis . 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.7 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:
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):
❑ 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: ick Lis
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ick Lis . 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 Lis river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ick Lis aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: ick Lis
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the PhAk Lis floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally- sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 0 ick Lis
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YM) 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:
I. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
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: Derita Branch was determined to be a perennial channel and exhibited a strong bed and bank, perennial
flow, and an average ordinary high water width of 6-8 feet. This channel, along with Little Sugar Creek has been historically
straightened and stabilized using rip rap. Channel bed substrate is dominated by sand. Derita Branch scored 38 out of a
possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 33 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ
Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP2, enclosed).

❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: —100 linear feet6 -8 width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
8 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. 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.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters v
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 JINTERSTATE 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):t0
r
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
BSee Footnote # 3
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III D 6 of the Instructional Gwdebook.
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 Jartsdi -don FoUawing Rapanos.

from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
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
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):
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 applicanticonsultant:
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:
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):
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
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:

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): March 10, 2010
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue, Charlotte, NC - Little
Sugar Creek
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.250482° N, Long. 80.8081940 �.
Universal Transverse Mercator.
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Sugar Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Sugar Creek
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: February 10, 2010
Field Determination. Date(s): February 10, 2010
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the US." 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 Ar� "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 waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: 1,100 linear feet: 8 -10 width (ft) and/or 0.23 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 987 Delineation Manua
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waterstwetlands (check if applicable):;
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e g, typically 3 months)
'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 III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and oITsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: f ick Lis
Drainage area: I Pick Lis
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through ick Lis tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are
ick Lis
river miles from TNW.
Project waters are
Pick Lis
river miles from RPW.
Project waters are
ick Lis
aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are
ick Lis
aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
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 apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick Lis
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: P ick Lis
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for ick Lis
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: ick Lis
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: ick Lis Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ick Lis . 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.' 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):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datum;
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation linestchanges in vegetation types.
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man -made discontinwty 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
rebid 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.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally- sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Pick Lis . Explain:
Surface flow is: ick Lis
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ick Lis . 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 Lis river miles from TNW.
Project waters are rck Lis aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: ick Lis
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ick Lis floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for.
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatictwildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Fick Lis
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
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.
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: Little Sugar Creek was determined to be a perennial channel and exhibited a strong bed and bank, strong
perennial flow, and an average ordinary high water width of 10 -15 feet. This channel has been historically dredged and
straightened and is located in a heavily developed watershed within Charlotte. Little Sugar Creek scored 40 out of a possible
100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 37.5 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCPI, enclosed).

❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 1,100 linear feet 8-10 width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non -RPWsa 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 9
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.
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III D 6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapaw&

from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
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
I gment (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:
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):
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
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:

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources .
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
April 24, 2011
DWQ# 11 -0229
Mecklenburg County
Ms. Crystal Taylor
Mecklenburg County, Stormwater Services
700 N. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject: Little Sugar Creek Enhancement/Restoration
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Ms. Taylor: ,
You have our approval, in accordance with the general certification and those conditions listed below,
to impact 1,137 linear feet (If) of unnamed Little Sugar Creek in order to complete the project in Mecklenburg
County, as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on March 10, 2011.
After reviewing.yqur application, we have determined that this project is covered by Water Quality General
Certification Number 3689, which, can be viewed .on our web site at _
http: / /Portal.ncdenr•.org /web /%w /swp /ws /401. -The General_Cehification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 27 once it is issued to you by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Please note that you should get any
other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not
limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non - Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certification will expire when the associated 404 permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification. This approval is only valid for the purpose and - design that you described
in your application. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be required to send
us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the
Certification and approval letter; and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions.
In addition to the requirements of the certification, you must also comply with the following conditions:
1. The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing once construction at the approved impact areas
has commenced.
2. Work shall be conducted in the dry.
3.. Storm water discharge structures at -this site shall.be constructed in a manner such =that the potential
receiving streams (of the discharge) will not-be impacted due to sediment accumulations, scouring or erosion
of the -stream banks.
4. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the --
footprint of the impacts depicted in the Preconstruction Notification application. All construction activities
Mooresville Regional Office One
Location. 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115 N_> ffiCarollna
Phone. [phone]Fax. [phone] Customer Service. 1- 877 - 623 -6748 jy'IJ
Internet. http: / /portal ncdenr.org/web/wq atuna ff
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

associated with this project shall meet, and /or exceed, those requirements specified in the most recent
version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual and shall be conducted so that no
violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
5. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable,
they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within two months of the date the Division of Land
Resources has released the project.
6. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401 /Wetlands Unit of the NC DWQ.
7. Continuing Compliance. The applicant (Mecklenburg County) shall conduct all activities in a manner so as
not to contravene any state water quality standard (including any requirements for compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of state and federal law. If DWQ
determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or
achieved use) or that state or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure
compliance, DWQ may reevaluate and modify this certification to include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before
codifying the certification, DWQ shall notify the applicant and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public
notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503, and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to the applicant in writing, shall be
provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issued pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -6714. This certification and its conditions are final
and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of DWQ under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any
questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704 - 663 -1699 or Ms. Cyndi
Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh 919 - 733 -9721.
Sincerely,
eZ 13
for Coleen H. Sullins
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Ian McMillan, Wetlands Unit
MRO, Land Quality
Matt Jenkins, Wildlands Engineering .

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 2011 -00534 County: Mecklenburg USGS Quad: Charlotte West
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services; Att'n: Crystal
Taylor
Address: 700 N. Tryon St. - Basement Level
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone No.:
Size and location of property (water body, road name /number, town, etc.): Little Sugar Creek at
Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement project; in Charlotte
Description of projects area and activity: Enhance 1,137 LF of Little Sugar Creek at the above
referenced location. Work activities will include: stabilizing stream banks with native vegetation,
installing instream boulder structures to improve habitat and grade control: and excavation of
tloodplain benches.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your
submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization
is modified, suspended or revoked. IC prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit
authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified
below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with
the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or
are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity
is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation,
unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the
authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone] to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local•approvals/pernrits.
If there.are'any'questioris regarding thiivMfication,`any ofee conditions of the Peiarit; or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Steve Chapin at 828 - 271 -7980.
Corps Regulatoy Official Steve Chapin Date: April 20.2011
Expiration Date of Verification: March 18, 2012

Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ❑ Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above
described project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the
permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a
period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
C. ® There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years
from the date of this notification.
D. ❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action.
Please reference jurisdictional determination issued _ Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: The site contains a stream channel that exhibits indicators of ordinary high
water marks. The stream channel on the property is Little Sugar Creek which flows into the Catawba Rivere and
ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean through the Little Sugar Creek> Sugar Creek>Catawba River system which is
a Section 10 navigable -in -fact waterway at Lake Wylie.
information: (This information does not apply to preliminary determinations as indicated by
paragraph A. above).
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that
approved jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will
find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) foram If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn: Steve Chapin, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Comps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the
criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of
the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address within 60
days from the Issue Date below.
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. **
Corps Regulatory Official: Steve Chapin
Issue Date: April 20, 2011 Expiration Date: Five Years from Issue Date
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
http:// pert .nwp.usace.army.mil/survev.html to complete the survey online.
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC.,
MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Furnished: Wildland Engineering, Inc. (Matt Jenkins), 1430 South Mint St., Suite 104,
Charlotte, NC 28203

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue; Governor
Linda A. Cadisle, Secretary,
)effiyJ• Crow, qty secretary
May 13, 2010
Matt Jenkins
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Rawrces
David Brook, Director
Re: Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement Project, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
ER 10 -0791
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for your letter of May 3, 2010, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 - 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely, p
Peter Sandbeck
Ltcation:109 East Jemes street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/F= (919) 807- 6570/807 -6599

VWA
N EMIR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
May 14, 2010
Mr. Matt L. Jenkins
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: Little Sugar Creek/Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement Project; Charlotte, Mecklenburg
County
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area.
Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not
necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural
areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.nenhp.org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our
Program also has a new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location:
<http: / /nhpweb.enr. state. ne. us / nhis/public /gmap75_main.phtml >. The user name is "public" and the
password is "heritage ". You may want to click "Help" for more information.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. This service provides site
specific information on GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NC OneMap website provides Element Occurrence (EO) ID
numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then encouraged to contact the Natural Heritage
Program for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
NHP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by
NHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit <www.nasnemap.com >, then click
on "FTP Data Download ", and then "nheo.zip" [to the right of "Natural Heritage Element Occurrences "]
You may also e-mail NC OneMap at <data cr,ncmail.net> for more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919- 715 -8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 73349841 FAX: 919 - 715 -3060 Intemet: www.encstate.nc.us NOne k Cara a
AoEqugl ovv�b,lA t , , �,w -sac rt�d %10%PWComme� Pie► �tura�

Little Sugar Creek — Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement Project
Existing Condition Photographs, 2010
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1
Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 2
Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project
'P
Photo 1 -View of Little Sugar Creek, facing downstream.
Photo 2 -View of gabion wall along left bank of Little Sugar
Creek, downstream of East 36`h Street.
h
e 's
Photo 3 -Lack of riffle features within Little Sugar Creek,
Photo 4 -View of downstream over -wide portion of Little
facing upstream at confluence with Derita Branch.
Sugar Creek and mid - channel bar formation.
MW
s-
r �•
Photo 5 -Lack of stabilizing vegetation and rip rap along banks
Photo 6 -View of Little Sugar Creek at East 36d, Street bridge.
of Little Sugar Creek.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 2
Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project

Photo 9 -Little Sugar Creek at the confluence with Derita
Branch.
WIM
Photo 10 -View of Derita Branch, facing upstream from Little
Sugar Creek.
Photo 11- Existing sewer easement adjacent to Little Sugar Photo 12- Existing sewer easement adjacent to Little Sugar
Creek. Creek.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3
Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project

Little Sugar Creek — Cullman Avenue Stream Enhancement Project
Photographs of completed construction (Stations 104 +00 to 111 +37), March 2012
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4
Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project

Photo 13 -Banks re- graded and planted with native vegetation. Photo 8- Looking upstream along a newly excavated floodplain
bench.
Photo 9- Looking downstream at newly constructed channel
and excavated floodplain bench.
Photo 11- Looking upstream at regarded steam banks and
floodplain bench at Station 110 +00.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Little Sugar Creek Stream Enhancement Project
Photo 10 -View of newly constructed channel and floodplain
bench looking upstream.
` .
Photo 12- Looking downstream at confluence of Little Sugar
Creek and Derita Branch.
Page 5

Kt/yy1sL F
Site
F�
AN
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
Little Sugar Creep e Cullman Avenue
Strewn and Water Quality Enhancement
Charlotte, North Carolina
BEFROM YOU Old
ol��
n-a THE LAVA
ChMotte -MW &1kQ
STM
FA s
Dwwm
ATER
FINAL PLANS
ISSUED AUGUST 4, 2011
Sheet Index
Title Sheet
0.1
Project Overview
0.2
General Notes and Symbols
0.3
Structure Table
0.3
Typical Sections
1.1 -1.2
Plan and Profile
2.1 -2.3
BMP -Add Alternate 1
3.1 -3.2
Planting Plan-Base Bid and Add Alternate 1
4.1
Planting Plan-Add Alternate 2
4.2
Details
5.1 -5.4
Erosion and Sediment Control
6.0
Cross Sections
7.1 -7.5
Project Directory
Engineerine:
Owner.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Mecklenburg County
License No. F-0831
Storm Water Services
1430 South Mint Street
700 North Tryon Street
Suite 104
Basement Level
Charlotte, NC 28203
Charlotte, NC 28202
Emily G. Reinicker, PE
Crystal Taylor, PE
704 -332 -7754
704 -336 -7342
11,Y lisml ffiW ��
rum �s� w vain
y0. R
Q
O
U
V �
1 7O
Qi ^
w ti
U o
� U
a�
z
Ilse- A� .e =Rl
J,bY� wm=
V.slsn -Loss MR
Oss.e B,� ICs
cu.a.eer A82
TITLE SHEET
Shea
0.1
NO

i
s
\ \ CQ,, I
nA, �\
di AU
i
��cfP FOII_CEM'M
\ \ 4 ERITA
BRANCH
RANCH \
all
m"
rc r 'so \ �'
0
VIC
1l � \ '\ i m \ \ •.\ \gyp � \� \
s l
0
pN ♦ . ` � _
Z
C
d�' lo
i\
3 g
s®
Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue g �� ��
® o a Charlotte, North Carolina � � d zv
Project Overview c g AZ
[�
11011-11111 F.R

2
,z
Ifif 0
a
�I� �I�Ibl�l =1�1�1�1�1�1�1� �I�t�lxl�l�tl
g( 319191113191 8191 g1 891 *T'l 8( 8(�t i I6 a i I t a: k S t� 8 r
I�I!��(;(;� II
Ilal�� iii �'
Il�sea(��(,I II
Sao � t
S �t
:I
N
Q
L
> 0 f Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue ,� Z�
® Charlotte, North Carolina � �9 fog[ 0� d zv
W General Notes and Symbols ;Uz
of - $ ZR

15
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
VARIES BENCH WIDTH VARIES.
TIE TO EXISTING SEE PLANS FOR GRADING
PER PUN
------ - - - - -- --
24' DIP
SANITARY SEWER
1s
SANITARY SEYLER
EASEMENT 7
S ®. WT, AND
PLANT UPPER
BANKS AND BENCH
23 0'
- 7s Bo 7s
BENCH WIDTH VARIES
SEE PLANS FOR GRADING
ZIP
68
DUKE POWER
EASEMENT
VARIES
TIE TO EXISTING
PER PLAN
EXISTING GRADE � I
- - - - -- — -----------------------------------
Y, NOTE.
1 IN AREAS WHERE OLD CHANNEL WALL BE FILLED
CONSTRUCT CtllllBlEL BLOCKAS SHOWN ON PLANS
SEE DETAL 4, SHEET 82
PROPOSED GRADE � Z—// —, I
PROPOSEDTHIILWEG ELEVATION PER PROFILE
PROPOSED BAN —
SEED. W
LIVE STAKE LOWER BANKS
�i Little Sugar Creek Typical Cross Section: Rule
1 I Not to Snk
VARIES BENCH WIDTH
TIE TO EXISTING VARIES
PER PLAN BEE PLANS
FOR GRADING
EXISTING GRADE
— — — — — — —\---,
24" DIP
SANITARY SEWER
011 SEED. ALAI, AND
PLANT UPPER
BANKS AND BENCH
PROPOSED GRADE J /
PROPOSED BANKFULL J
SEED, WT. AND
LIVE STAKE LOWER BANKS
2879
8.75' 1125 875 —
..............L... --- - - - ---
PROPOSED THALWEG
ELEVATION PER PROFILE
��Litde Sugar Creek Typical Cross Section: In -Line Pool
Not to sine
w
DUKE POWER
EASEMENT
BENCH WIDTH VARIES.
VARIES L..,� TIE TO EXISTING
SEE PLANS I PER PLAN
FOR GRADING,
i I q\
Riffle Table
Mead of Rd%
Tell of Rift
100100
100188
101.30
101+80
102.85
103.28
103152
103+85
104+08
104+80
105+20
105-61
105+90
100+21
108+88
107-08
107.30
107+83
107+81
108+00
108+30
108+02
108+60
110+08
nwTO
111+06
In -Line Pool Table
Begin Max Pool
End Max PW
100+03
101.23
101+80
101+00
104+88
IW10
100+10
100-65
110+33
110180
NOTE
1 FOOL DEPTH VARIES PER PROFILE MAINTAIN SIDE
SLOPES AND ADAM BOTTOM WIDTH TO ACHIEVE
TWLLWEG ELEVATION PER PROFILE
2. IN AREAS WHERE OLD CHANNEL WILL BE FILED
CONSTRUCT CW44EL BLOCK AS SHOWN ON PLANS
SEE DETAIL I. SHEET 8 2
Im Pd Wet BuvlAm 101 I
T�J11TX11
Pm 101J12ll06
Rm lb ®M P-0pl
Y 1
0. RE
n1M+
CIS
V
U �
' o
U &
_O
�U
•ty
0
F
Ilue Aq 4X011
jb Avo6c OOSU101
Pn}a EGR
Ib+e bP 10
cti.a.a er A80
Re+hk,
TYPICAL
SECTIONS
9>m

10s av 140
tt �`
........L.... .....�.`\ ..............®
24'DIP 18' 9 6
8ANITARY SEWER --
SEED, MAT. AND
PLANT UPPER
BANKS AND BENCH
PROPOSED GRADE J
PROPOSED LANKFULL J
SEED. MAT, AND J
LIVE STAKE LOWER BANKS
ROCK TOE B'
THICK REUSE EXISTING BAN( RIP RAP
MATERIAL ON OUTSIDE BAN( FROM
TOE TO 18' BELOW SAND:ULL
16
SANITARY SEINER
EASEMENT
VARIER
TE TO EXISTING
PER PLAN
PROPOSEDTHALWEO
PER PROFILE
TILL �� s
i
EXISTING GRADE
L ittle Sm Creek Typical Cross Section: Meander Pool Otight Bend
H.2 Na to Sob
BENCH WIDTH VARIES
SEE PLANS
FOR GRADING
2876
14W 60, 10.6
EXISTING OR
BENCH WIDTH VARIES
SEE PLANS
FOR GRADING
2P DIP �\ 18'
SANITARY SEWER \ —39 ZS,1
oll
PROPOSED THALWEG POSED GRADE
PER PROFILE PROPOSEDBANKFUU.
SEED. MAT, AND
LIVE STAID: LOWER BANKS
ROCK TOE W
TH ICK. REUSE EXISTING BANK RIP RAP
MATERIAL ON OUTSIDE RANK FROM
TOE TD 18' BELOW BANKFULL
eLittleLittle Sugar Typical Cross Section: Meander Pool (Left Bend)Tw_ Typical Cross Section: Meander Pool (Left Bend)
1.2 Not to Sob
VARIES
TIE TO EXISTING
PER PLAN.
Meander Bend Right
IF w
SANITARY SEWER DUKE POWER
EASEMENT EASEMENT
End Max Pod
VARIES BENCH WIDTH VARIES BENCH WIDTH VARIES VARIES TO EXISTING
TIETOEXGTtNG SEE PLANS 28 76 nEPER
104-1
PER PLAN FOR GRADING FOR GRADING I PLAN,
10s av 140
tt �`
........L.... .....�.`\ ..............®
24'DIP 18' 9 6
8ANITARY SEWER --
SEED, MAT. AND
PLANT UPPER
BANKS AND BENCH
PROPOSED GRADE J
PROPOSED LANKFULL J
SEED. MAT, AND J
LIVE STAKE LOWER BANKS
ROCK TOE B'
THICK REUSE EXISTING BAN( RIP RAP
MATERIAL ON OUTSIDE BAN( FROM
TOE TO 18' BELOW SAND:ULL
16
SANITARY SEINER
EASEMENT
VARIER
TE TO EXISTING
PER PLAN
PROPOSEDTHALWEO
PER PROFILE
TILL �� s
i
EXISTING GRADE
L ittle Sm Creek Typical Cross Section: Meander Pool Otight Bend
H.2 Na to Sob
BENCH WIDTH VARIES
SEE PLANS
FOR GRADING
2876
14W 60, 10.6
EXISTING OR
BENCH WIDTH VARIES
SEE PLANS
FOR GRADING
2P DIP �\ 18'
SANITARY SEWER \ —39 ZS,1
oll
PROPOSED THALWEG POSED GRADE
PER PROFILE PROPOSEDBANKFUU.
SEED. MAT, AND
LIVE STAID: LOWER BANKS
ROCK TOE W
TH ICK. REUSE EXISTING BANK RIP RAP
MATERIAL ON OUTSIDE RANK FROM
TOE TD 18' BELOW BANKFULL
eLittleLittle Sugar Typical Cross Section: Meander Pool (Left Bend)Tw_ Typical Cross Section: Meander Pool (Left Bend)
1.2 Not to Sob
VARIES
TIE TO EXISTING
PER PLAN.
Meander Bend Right
Bagm Max Pool
End Max Pod
103W
104-1
10aN9
to8+51
10&-29
108.90
SEED, MAT, AND
PLANT UPPER
BANGS AND BENCH
w
DUKE POWER
EASEMENT
NOTE
1 POOL DEPTH VARIES PER PROFILE MAINTAIN SIDE
SLOPES AND ADAM BOTTOM WIDTH TO AC11EVE
THALWED ELEVATION PER PROFILE
2 IN AREAS WIMM OLD CHANNEL WILL BE FILLED
CONSTRUCT CHANNEL BLOCK AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
SEE DETAIL 4, SHEET 52
Meander Bend Left
Bagm Max Pod
EIW Max Plot
10&-95
109TH
105+78
105-1
107+18
107+yT
107+72
107+75
NOTE
1 POOL DEPTH VARIES PER PROFILE MAINTAIN SIDE
SLOPES AND ADANST BOTTOM WIDTH TO ACHIEVE
THALWEG ELEVATION PER PROFILE
2 IN AREAS WHERE OLD CHANNEL WILL BE FILL®
CONSTRUCT CHANNEL BLOCK AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
SEE DETAIL 4, SHEET 52
LINO8.r!L Beal9oYe I0�
CY,boe,KC L'2m
Td ]O/Si1Tlf1
Po. 101312]]06
P6m11 ®NeP�I
O&Qat
1w
0
UU
1
�z
U �
oA ~
. w.1
P4
F
1— .1vp11.m11
LdKm O lmw
rn... er lac
C6edal Nn A09
E
TYPICAL
a
SECTIONS
1.2

8m z
I I I
�I a
to
r zigg
g A
_ �- - -,
I,
N rji�( .,
/•'I
8
e W
O
�f�Z�
1
OF RWFW
STA -104-80
1
I
= 87214 1
,
111 �
i!I iii,
Plans
1 ELEV • BM b3
I
�
i
� �
I
A. 103+65 I
ELEV- 81268,
1
i
rn
n�
G
b
STA. 103+62
i ELEVI 87288
Charlotte, North Carolina
I
I
i
Q-
/ 1
i
-- I
/ 00000 r
87285
i
i
I
II
~ STA -10
I
i
i , I
t
'tf1JJ !' I __ _ �• _ ®_per__'""- l I ; I
:.� =•'s" _�- Q ® -t "� 36TH
I �
i'� ;i'r;� I •�• �
O
�f�Z�
�
1
1
ELEV -6T7AU
i
111 �
i!I iii,
Plans
I
m
1
I
Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue
i
rn
n�
G
b
Charlotte, North Carolina
r3
i
MEADOF .RIFFLE
i
li '
I
• ill l�l.l � � �
n
[�i
ELIN 674A6
Plan and Profile
N
ZR
i
W
peg
n
A
VA .100+85
I
674 45
ELEV -
I
$
I , ,�
''•.
J. I,'l I t• I V
I
T„ AD OF
STA -100+65
RIFFLE
66
ELEV - 674
�
� �, I
1 I
'tf1JJ !' I __ _ �• _ ®_per__'""- l I ; I
:.� =•'s" _�- Q ® -t "� 36TH
I �
O
Ol
O
Final
Plans
I
I
Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue
i
rn
n�
G
b
Charlotte, North Carolina
aBF
n
[�i
Luz
Plan and Profile
N
ZR
W
peg
n
A

' !I
TCH LINE STA�1U 1 + ,1 + j+ j' I = STA •,3014 $ $ $
I I I { - ! y ' I \ ELEV • 871 46 z
$TA 108M2
1 1 I w I,j • 2 bi y S {inn 1 n
11 +1t; !1 O IOA < 1136
39
HEO OF RIFFLE
jo I I1 'h II I iY 1$s ` -671
L 1 I! I I
I I! `
J f +I R 1 i I
k. I ,•
EiEV -87147
&ANItARY SEWER
n
sTA -106M9
I I �� I —� i � it I I i I IPS 1/ 1¢AD CK RIFFLE I
D� RW I *�
1 ITA -,07+W I
-871 es
s a
! I I I IIII I \ A
1 { III I > Q Y FY 1 STA • 107.30
EIEV- 671041
1 __ - �_- _ -_-1— --!�' III' I �� "s � I '• I
_ I I I , l i i> � '', � I � � > STA • 107+08
ELEV -'971 64i
1'1 I I 111 t £ i s y,Q x 11 I • HEAD OF RIFFLE
2f `� 6TA - 106.88
1 11 ,II I ' ii ` I I I • ELEV - 97188
I'lq 1 ' I I II I I o 0 STA•,OBM6 I
E[EV.67174 !
•� � III { �+ ! I ��� � I � I • �� '
11 I I i ( I I �+ S7A•108.41
p
—p�j —p p -e71
I I' II pup I �� / ELEV•871p
--
I �_�` I I 111•i ,. I I I' 9rAe106.61
ELEV•871p
all
�,I I ! .► /iii /�i �+4 iii ;! I � _R5 b � I - - --
//////
OFRIFFLE
I 106.20
67197
/i / ✓i l�ti���- 1 +7d I I I j / i STA
8"• 67198
I I � •I I! � --i— I j Y n� I �� I
8
A
Final Plans
zg
Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue ,�� n_
North Carolina 9 zv Charlotte, [
r Plan and Profile j i

sill
1 � �
Fft% pp SIN
------- ---- ---
----- -- ------------
----- ------
I �z
0
CL
m
g
Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue r 0:� z
Charlotte, North Carolina
za
Plan and Profile 2!z
z ZR
WEI
W.4
■
No
11-
m
MIEEEOmm
m
m
g
Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue r 0:� z
Charlotte, North Carolina
za
Plan and Profile 2!z
z ZR

it
------ - - - - --
oQE
I I
lip
as �
SA
',by w�
oVE
1 � - -- -- r , ••\ I it i i� ,�I �` . \�\ \
i�
-XI I 1 1 ; II li,i
it
c `�
M
i I I g
1 r W , ,', I � i•�.11 �''
4 � 1' I , ` • T, �
4 I jl I I'
i
• - --- - - 'j I 1 yam--- ''' i f;' /
! � I ( ;; ' � , � I it � J •',
A, I ii, li it 1
ch
PI $p� a p p
fmA
r, it �� � `� •'\ I � i ; i � O
3 i 11 ? li m
c I
jo
MID
1 � �•�'� a III
Ml!
n /
'I!
g
m
Z I I ':illiil i
c
OD
i Ilillll; p�
r• 8 yi�r;; y _ --
T 36TH STREET
bll �
Final Plans
I I � � � Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue , � n9
Charlotte, North Carolina � �p "�`�= ���� d zv
� >.� l71
BMP -Add Alternate 1 -':,; !?rl nd Z
303
!33B o373
�' i$G
g
c
6
o »SS��>RBg�
x
E
�
g
u
�
,
Yg-

O
� ffi
0
oN
0
O �
Z
D
� F
g
� ' I
I
I
I
m
a
� I
I N r
n
c
0
LSD'_ Z
-�� co
c n ,-
Z Z1
Oi
� I I
� II
I I I
I
$ � e
to I I
I
I I
I I �
I�
I�
I�
I�
I�
I�
ip I
i�
iW
:61
r
y X
c
m
H
C �
: \ \\\ '
Z �
r i
Imcc °
f �ffR R
f_if f
a _ Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue „ „��i�i��,,, � Zg
w r Charlotte, North Carolina�W "��° =d R BMP Details - Add Alternate I
Z�i
MEN
■■■
SMOM
MOM
®
.M
a
1*
.
L
A
=
MOM
■■■MILAN
111
ME
i?AN
■I
it
SE
- 2
�Alhl!
•
■
■
= =
■ME
d
� ' I
I
I
I
m
a
� I
I N r
n
c
0
LSD'_ Z
-�� co
c n ,-
Z Z1
Oi
� I I
� II
I I I
I
$ � e
to I I
I
I I
I I �
I�
I�
I�
I�
I�
I�
ip I
i�
iW
:61
r
y X
c
m
H
C �
: \ \\\ '
Z �
r i
Imcc °
f �ffR R
f_if f
a _ Little Sugar Creek - Cullman Avenue „ „��i�i��,,, � Zg
w r Charlotte, North Carolina�W "��° =d R BMP Details - Add Alternate I
Z�i

I / /
I
OIE
BENARD AVENUE SwF,,. `
i G 1r4 \\
I g fw
1 1 1
F�
I 1
I
I 1
I � $
r
1 I ,
I ,
WE OUE WE pUE WE pUE W
WE OUE— — WE WE WE WE
�- CUE`
ONE Om ON
_ �E� t s6. 1r ^T'ar, :a :• �• •. . Ilk : ,. • . a8. dp •ti
��� � � • i °poo °OOO °pOO °poo °Oo
I I I
I h I I
I r
Proposed Power Easement PleMklg Proposed Stream BBndUUpper Banks
wa.w Rrod dh m a r Bares Root ®5' O C
splamne Nam
Camlal Nara
Paine
CMSra abNbla
Slml asweel
25%
CaOdw enrrkwna
HaaM
25%
Came ermrmal
Saly Doowood
8096
Proposed Power Easement PWWJN
w ono
Sdmtlnc Neale
Cerrar10n None
Pamd
CaBYarPa ernakam
BeekYDanY
2896
CbFAre aktls/s
su mmaweel
1 25%
Canes ammaan
SBiq Dogwood
I 50%
Proposed Power Easement Planting
w�o....F ew cnn
scm-ft Noe
COrwrlOn Name
Pe1mm
Qaem m anral0am
Bea*"
25%
CWykwamw9mm
HamtrlW
25%
Came amomun
a" DOW-0
60%
Proposed Stream Bank
I I..w dwaoe .Rl x n r
Sdsdao Nara
mar
Projed Oh
=!;---
Sary Daowood
WE,
887
Soar eakwe
SBky Wl
B87
swbN mmawnb
i ELY
887
Sdsdao Nara
Callan Nam
pmmd
Bob dpm
RI.W NM
15%
Conan anlerraml
Segr[bpwood
15%
FFedmaprmyAwdp
Gmm AO
15%
LkW m b&lzah
Spb6hIwII
2196
tine wxftnwpwm
TuOp P'o0n
20%
PraWWOOddrdma
bkmlae
15%
Proposed Stream BendVUpper Banks 2
Bare Root @ 5' O C
Stlemae Nam
Campo Name
Proem
Alm amdde
Teo Aker
20%
BaaGdpe
Riga een
15%
Coaaarrpnran
all Dogwood
15%
Frol Pw=ffl dtw
Greer) An
15%
M'aa
Stock Gum
20%
Rewrla paldedms
SAW."
15%
ME Proposed Stream BendWpper Banks 3
Bare Rom�s'oc
Stlwdit Nary
Campo Nm
I Peroad
asmal m
Roar ekdl
15%
COAM
Haahud
18%
Cwmm amlman
lay DOow ,
16%
ablupa Wpdane
PaeYFmm
17%
Fhft%a oodderdear
symnrre
18%
Grimm nail
Swale Red Oak
18%
om
OW — -- O,E
FERN FW u Ff FW
puE --_
dE ---- -
ONE
�_ -�__ —_ �y,pd AV 7rypj
-- -
- -il� a 8, lo,
CULLMAN AVENUE HORIZONTAL
Pemmrard Seed C 40 rod acre
Apply in Sarltiary Sewer Esserne d —
and all Planted areas
8del Nam
Corn Name
%
Rudbel ram
Wall Sam
291A
Dkdm Mel dowift n
Deartmpr
15%
jlR d ftam
Soft Ran
19%
chm"Waa41am0two
Plumps Pea
20%
PdyBaean Pea7Aradaan
Pee 30=18 8,11mmV d
10%
cwwpds Bnrnda
Goken Till
15%
COarnanWtal kllbaml
WAM VlbOdmp
5%
Pedaen Wpetrlm
Swil hl I
5%
Temporary Seed
Apply in as d turbed areas.
Aff.W Rye 2011W acre
Faaee MmBt 10 bw sae
Fel= keI 25 OW acre
NOTE
1 GiouWlww Owd he MIAMI on expend doom Wain 21 odl drys kBmbV mmpleBOn dally
primedOnlerw. Pei atad �ollrWmverfaan aahrrhed area wafts 18 Welklla Berea BO taerdar
"Iwhicto —blil AOBOnirw mnpeBOn doorraudivladsraroprod
2. leases hammrd pmt r *W for Wrens Baas SW 100.00 to 111+07 and adhe Plarrd am.
Bare Rod Stem Coats - Bass Bk
BMP Planting - Add Altemate 1
Proposed MW Bed PlaMrg OREM
wwrw Red re Ph- ® WO r:
w
oC
N
N
ENt IGNENRIINNG
WILDLANDS
ENG NG�INC.
Rm KhA& —O—la
�.c "2o
T.k 101aiT.'I75F
\ Pm m)1z)pe
F6m IssueM P-0wl
AQ,tH
�! pt
`rya
rW
Stlemwe Nam
Camas Nam
Sim
Oaa�Y
Aalrmpa10e
Ea Eke
Sara Rod
4
Aha mNN
Tag Alder
ere Root
4
Comm Off man
Say DopwooA
file Root
S
M'Wdaanft7Paeekes
St Jam vm
Paw
40
And)epo0onaanwOA
eaftyeowdoma
Pkw
40
Haan e0bela
son Ron
Pkw
40
Pedaemwwt m
Pkw
ro
'TIN OR;*. K
a
ea
U
U
�z
U �
� a°
�U
1``
04
r,
V
4
b
i FA
as
a
y
a
P.y. --W. v IIGR
now Br
PCR
C'4drd 1)T Aga
RePWaw
PLANTING
PLAN -BASE BID AND
ADD ALTERNATE I
a-
4.1

/Q 4' /
/ x
r
�E/ /�7� OOE OUF OUE OUE pUc O,h OUE OUE ( VIDE OU OJE
I WE / d°
CLAL VIDE CRAM 1
0,1E�
ale o1rE _
yE 01�
~ ..
• ...../ _ a>E � r � .. eJET -rq,� -- �P _mod
1 •97 _ ,111.00" .. 1 15� , 1. , , ' 1
1 _ '
i 99 e h 69
�r
69 _ - -� ____ _
I/ I1
BEM r PE � OOFL
1
l 1
1
� I
WI ENGINEERING
BENARD AVENUE � � �eLwc11 � �
—� - - -- -`� N 1
• Eralgl aKO 3ro - - = ENGINEERLINDG INC.
1 Wf 1 E2!! rr.
I 'rI co r6%e.m Nwm.newl la
c 3La]I
1 j 1 � wml�n. Pam
I
1
1 I
I III o.
ow
1
OUE- OJE—y- OUE OUE OUE OUE WrE -E
�
0.N E��-
M �� UAL UL , ou �_rEUS rw ®rr6v.rw rl16w rw
LOAM 1
1 1 1 1
1
il
I I I ACNE
1
1 1 , H L
3rID
I -------- -�-- -- - i---- i - - - - --
1 - -
CULLMAN AVENUE
- - - -- -- --------- - - - - --
- -- -- - -- — - - - - - -- - --
------ -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
` IProposed Stream eerlavupper Bamla Proposed Stream BencNUpper Banks 2
Bare Roots ® WO C Barg Roots C 5' O C
Selamab Nalns
Common Nuns
P01OeN
Bow Npa
RNm BCh
15S%
Cormle amnalwrm
S Dgrwo00
ft
15%
FrarhmapmsuyMuLts
DOW Ash
15%
Lkrdsra am alt
4bmxm
206
Lbbdslbm Oeplme
Tuel, Popov
206
Fkdems aeddxftb
Byf811da
16%
9alertlm N—
Colrymn Name
Pmew
A41e=M*b
Tap MW
201E
Bee Nora
River Biro
15%
Camua anwmm
SBpr DOgaOad
15%
FOP
Groan Ash
15%
N7aaa 04911m
Oka* Gun
20%
Padmpe omthwei a
B)vrma
0%
Stem Count - Add Alternate 2
Setemale Nodal
Cormvl Normal
Project ouluft
Akre mnlafs
Tap Alden
60
Ba6dsrsors
Rhar Btrdl
84
COrrmaAwo mm
Salenoraeed
67
C,,4,, enarluwm
Haminul
21
Cllospyroarepeaemc
ParNmnals
22
Fraxkwm PmsoMamos
Gmmr Ash
65
LJrldma sma0kr
lry
39
Lkkatmm ermere
I Trap Poplar
i 39
Nym SyNa6ca
Black Gum
49
PLahmo oodderdala
aw—
I as
ouama ndre
SoL*wn Red Oak
1 23
Proposed Stream Bendvupeer Banks 3
Bare Roots 0 5' O.0 °eo, °Oegg� eee e°
Selo m Nmne
Cmmcn Nana
Pmcard
Bathnom
Fame"
15%
CogOm arrrlarLeVre
Ilaae6ua
16%
Correa arrrornmn
SOry Dagaoo0
16%
obspyrall WOW—
Palaannwr
17%
P001811e000e -AW3
Syurma
16%
Oumae nos
Sol@alrn Red Oak
18%
Plug Planting - Add Alternate 2
400 Plugs Placed at bank in per Enghmes dhedbn
Solmm Noma I COrruraln Nang Type LI
IF
Jureulsalmua SoI1 Ruh PkrO
Container Planting - Add Alternate 2
. 40' _ ao' Aso'
HORIZONTAL
B88 18 Y 3
73 3
Plan COOS
9dMlab Nmm
Cmmpn Nome
Sim
CAM"
ACNE
Acerreormdo
Box Mar
BIB
2
ALSE
Aare asmdela
Tao AMm
s. gal
3
BEM
Bedda NPe
RNm B"M
B88
11
CRAM
Camoarps rmk s"
BasOysany
3 gaL
5
CECA
Cmgb emle0mee
Red011d
100aL
10
CLAL
Clalma aerahys
&wwwwaet
3gLL
10
LOAM
Oonwo mrrarlxarr
Gary Dorawd
& We
3
COFL
COmui scads
Flommer" Dogwood
IOWA
7
FRPE
d
B8B
a
I
mtl
39A
5
ILVE
OS+raPoeuOah
VANammry
390
3
SAm
Saer W.
legal,
1
VIDE
Vlmamandsraman
ArmBb,*VVIDOra
drweed
30A
7
MYCE
Mylk'a oedMe
wu My,"
1094
4
cc
O
4 U.
U
W O
�z
U t:
O
m
r11
a
N
ate+
b
a
s
a
ID— A�4.2013
yaN� 9a ;G
P.eJm P.q� aGa
l—Br ICK
�ar ASK
R-blo w
PLANTING
PLAN -ADD
ALTERNATE2
a — yA4 //�
0.2

s
0
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
t
HEAD OF RIFFLE
WITH SILL WHERE 17 NOMINAL THICKNESS
SHOINN ON PLAN OF ON49TE STONE
FROM ExIsrwo BANKS
0 TAIL OF RIFFLE WITE
SILL WHERE SHOWN
ON PLAN
FILTER FABRIC LENGTH OF RIFFLE
/-
,4,UENGTH RIFFLE
PER PROF
EXTENDS Sm PER PROFILE
UPSTREAM
NONWOVEN
FAA Prose FILTER FABRIC
�j INVERT ELEVATION
6 PER
L OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION
PER PROFILE -BED 51
INTO SAW
OYM
Secitim &B'
Constructed Riffle Boulder
Pin View
PftMeA,A'
SEE PROFILE
Ir NOMINAL THICKNESS
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
TOP OF SAW ITM
OF ONSn STOW
FROM EXISTING BANKS
1 1
HEAD OF RIFFILJI; _
JI
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
��1.11./,14
14 19
1•j.Iq
1•
POOL
/ / / / -/
•I • • •I • • 11r •),r
•I • • • •I • 1) 1) 1) Il
Praffie
s
0
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
t
HEAD OF RIFFLE
WITH SILL WHERE 17 NOMINAL THICKNESS
SHOINN ON PLAN OF ON49TE STONE
FROM ExIsrwo BANKS
0 TAIL OF RIFFLE WITE
SILL WHERE SHOWN
ON PLAN
FILTER FABRIC LENGTH OF RIFFLE
/-
,4,UENGTH RIFFLE
PER PROF
EXTENDS Sm PER PROFILE
UPSTREAM
NONWOVEN
FAA Prose FILTER FABRIC
�j INVERT ELEVATION
6 PER
L OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION
PER PROFILE -BED 51
INTO SAW
OYM
Secitim &B'
Constructed Riffle Boulder
Pin View
PftMeA,A'
SEE PROFILE
Ir NOMINAL THICKNESS
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
TOP OF SAW ITM
OF ONSn STOW
FROM EXISTING BANKS
1 1
HEAD OF RIFFILJI; _
JI
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
RIFFLE
�I �I 11 �I 11 • • • I! �l
POOL
/ / / / -/
•I • • •I • • 11r •),r
•I • • • •I • 1) 1) 1) Il
Praffie
OF SLOPE7
l
�TOE
TOP OF
POINT PER PROFILE
Pbnvkw
Section B-W
(Constructed RitIIe �
s l a to Scale .�
P.
U
U �
' o
17 NOMINAL THICKNESS
OF ONSITE STONE
FROM EXISTING BANKS 17 NOMINAL THICKNESS HEADER ROCK
OF EXISTING BANKS 7 L OFFSET HEADER o
TOP OF BANK FROM E%ISTINO BANKS
ozsroor �� �
PLACE HEADER BOULDERS TO UPSTREAM OF FOOTER I. D CIS
WITH T TO 7 CLEM SPACE HOI'AAiOiIEN BED ,�^WWW�JJJJ
BETWEEN ROCKS FILTER FABRIC V,
FILTER FABRIC TOE OF LITM EVATI EXCAVATE POOL
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC S MIN a PER PROFILE FOOTER ROCK UPSTREAM FLO ` EXTEND FILET FABRIC
a
e Section A-A'
0
STRUCTURE INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE HEADER ROCK
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
PIM View
am
FOOTER ROCK
Rock 1 1
® 7
A
1— tq . =1-
hbN
Dsw P/' NCR
lbdel lM ASR
Re•Yim•
DETAILS
5.1

IMPEP— is nee
(SI
/INTAKE HOSE
HIGH STRENGTH
DOUBLE STITCHED
'l TYPE SEMIS.
PLACED ON
DR STRAW \
Plan View
MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
MfIWALPROPERTY
TESTS
MATERIAL
WA
POLYETHYLENE
RECOMENDED COLOR
WA
'INTERNATIONAL ORANGF
TENSLE YIELD
ASTM DOM
AVE 2000 Uft PER W WIDE
ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH
ASTM DUO
AVE. 2000 LBS PER r WIDE
ELONGATION AT BREAK (%)
ASTM OLM
GREATER TH N IO00%
CHEMICAL RESISTANCE
WA
PERT TO MOST CHEMICALS AND ACIDS
B MAX . WIT" WORE
ATTACH SAFETY FENCE
TO METAL POSTS USING
METAL HARE TIES ORANGE SAFTY
FENCE
RVIOUS DOM
INSET in
OUTLET
RAP AND
ER FABRIC
WON.
FABRIC
Ills" 'C"
n Pump Around System
%14,/ Not to Scale
STASII 17M OUTLET USING CLASS B
RIPRAP TRENCHED INTO EVISTING
GROUNDAMMMUMOFT SIZEAND
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE
FIELD BY THE ENGINEER
FI EMm c DISCHARGE HOSE FROM
PUMP AROUND PUMP HELD IN PLACE
WITH SAND BAGS AS NEEDED
I
("'REE)
MAX WITHOUT VAR
L
MIDDLE AND VERTICAL
❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
SHALL BE 12 1 GAGE
COE70STBD GROUND
FILTER FABW
TOP AND BOTTOM STRAND
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ G ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑
S
1 USE WIRE A M0N1M OF Si rN W DTH AND
LIT BTAYLMlC1�N0 B ONES OF VYIRES VYTTN
2 WID FILTER FASTS A DEQUAT LY O IN WIDTH AND
FASTEN ITELY THE
qFABN=
m.L.A ar ABR
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ L7 ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑
o�o............ o.......... o..... c•.�•.•. x o'o'� o'er o'a'o'o'o'�'c'� c.•.
1..'.��. \�.�o�.•�.
INOeLWA—NC Z
Ta m, i " eW
s101
Pm ip 1, 10 TI6
Pbm l\� P-0flll
SIL CAIR
frsMO�
6
YQ
Y.I
P.
:d
A
U
U c
�z
CIS
FBI 4i
U
1.1
�U
•wq
A
T OR V POST DRIVEN MINIMUM OF
IC IMO GROUND
❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
COE70STBD GROUND
}6N®im a Illm
IIOR
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ G ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑
S
1 USE WIRE A M0N1M OF Si rN W DTH AND
LIT BTAYLMlC1�N0 B ONES OF VYIRES VYTTN
2 WID FILTER FASTS A DEQUAT LY O IN WIDTH AND
FASTEN ITELY THE
qFABN=
m.L.A ar ABR
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ L7 ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑
DIRECTED BY TH 4E
a PROVIDE 87EM POST OOFF THEHE
S� � R ANGLE STEEL TYPE ANGLE
EXTEN� h
INTO TRENCH �
--
II II
I I I I
u u
CIS
DETAILS
2 Safety Fence
J4 of [O
m
Temporary Silt Fence
a
5.4

s�
4;
/4
\ o z
TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM Ha'g
SEE DETAIL 3. SHEET 6 7 /
ell
s �-
� vw
- - - - 6ENPID PvENV- _ _ ,
E
'W — 1
/ I I
III
I � I
I I
III
I�I
I I TEMPORARYi
II EXISTING DUKE SEE DETAIL ..
p POWER EASEMENT
M
I I I WATER EA ENT
ENT
/ sl E
' E / OL �
SUE
wa
\ STAGNOANO V ALONG TOP OF GR-ADING� "
FOCKPMP AREA ',AND AT BACK OF BENCH \ .atn
to
00-d' i
/ � ON ENTRANCE y/ �\
SEE DETAIL 6, SHEET lLb
NA� 1 �
SEDIMENT CONTROL CONTACT
MS CRYSTALTAYLOR
MECKLENBURG COUNTY STORM WATER SERVICES
PHONE 704,1 .73.2
`OW
150'
HORRONTAL
4GINEERING INC.
ism RCbT.6ft NL21 m
Td Mi 33.M W
.�a
va 1— r. va.n
I;
w�
Y
P.
co
.cc o
iy c
�U
U
' o
4) z
U r.
c%
V1U �
�U
A
a
O
W
R.y.� Ran
�... ICK
C.�sid nl' MR
RRewl�
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT
CONTROL
6.0
1