20071213 Ver 1_401 Application_20070707

`[il~cws
July 12, 2007
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
~u~ t 3 2oor
DENR • WATER QUALITY
WIETL{WD? AkD STOc!AIYATER ERANCH
07-1213
,~~~-
~,~3
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 13 and 29
and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3495 and 3402
6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2007-1976
The 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project is located in Charlotte, North Carolina
approximately 1 mile southeast of the Tyvola Road -Interstate 77 interchange (Figure 1, enclosed).
The purpose of this project is to perform stream maintenance in order to reduce channel downcutting
and erosion within a residential neighborhood. Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) has
contracted CWS, Inc. to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project.
Applicant Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services, Isaac J. Hinson
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-336-4495
Street Address of Project: 6001 Cherrycrest Lane, Charlotte, NC
Waterway: UT to Kings Branch
Basin: Catawba River (HLT# 03040105)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.28913°, W80.77578°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Charlotte West, NC, 1996
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is residential with maintained lawns and small adjacent
wooded areas. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of white oak (Quercus alba), tag
alder (Alnus serrulata), red maple (Ater rubrum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), glossy privet
(Ligustrum lucidum), blackberry (Rubus argutus), English ivy (Hedei°a helix), various grasses
(Festuca spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), grape vine (Vitis rotundifolia), and poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County', on-site soils
consist of Cecil sandy clay loam (CeB2 and CeD2) and Enon sandy loam (EnD). Cecil and Enon soils
are well-drained and exhibit moderate permeability.
~ United States Department of Agriculture, 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
NORTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA NEW YORK
WWW.CWS-INC.NET

July 12, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Page 2 of 4
Jurisdictional Determination
On June 25, 2007 CWS's Matt Jenkins, WPIT, and Paul Bright investigated on-site jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) -Routine On-Site Determination Method.
This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.2 There were no
jurisdictional wetland areas within the project limits. A Routine On-Site Data Form representative of
non jurisdictional upland areas has been enclosed (DP1). Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were
classified according to recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)3 and USAGE
guidance. NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms and USAGE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
for Streams A -Bare enclosed (SCP 1 - SCP2). Approved Jurisdictional Determination Fonns were
filled out for each stream to determine jurisdiction and significant nexus to navigable waters of the U.S.
Both forms have been included.
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are two jurisdictional stream channels
(Stream A - B) located within the project area (Figure 1, enclosed). According to the Approved
Jurisdictional Determination Forms, both streams are relatively permanent waters (RPW) that flow
indirectly into traditional navigable waters (TNW). Therefore both streams are determined to have a
significant nexus to downstream TNW's. On-Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are unnamed
tributaries to Kings Branch and are located within the Catawba River basin (HU# 03040105)4. Kings
Branch is classified as "Class C" by the NCDWQ.
Stream A is located between 5939 and 6001 Cherrycrest Lane and flows north to its confluence with
Stream B (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A was evaluated to be unimportant intermittent and exhibited a
continuous bed and bank, weak groundwater flow, hydric soils within the stream bed, and substrate
consisting of silt to fine gravel. Unimportant Intermittent Stream A scored 22 out of a possible 100
points on the USAGE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 21.5 out of a possible 71 points on
the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP1, enclosed).
Photographs of Unimportant Intermittent Stream A are enclosed as Photographs A and B.
Stream B is located behind 6001 Cherrycrest Lane and flows west across the project area
(Figure 1, enclosed). Stream B was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited perennial flow, moderate
headcuts, an average ordinary high water width of 3 feet, and substrate consisting of silt to small
cobbles. Biological sampling of this channel resulted in a weak presence of benthic
macroinvertebrates and a moderate presence of amphibians. Perennial Stream B scored 34 out of a
possible 100 points on the USAGE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 31 out of a possible 71
points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP2, enclosed).
Photographs of Perennial Stream B are enclosed as Photographs C and D.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June 22, 2007 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. As of the date of this submittal, a response from SHPO has not yet
been received. This project is located in a residential area dominated by homes built between 1985
and 1987. The occurrence of any area of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance is
unlikely.
z Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999. Stream Classification Method. Version 3.1.
a "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.

July 12, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Page 3 of 4
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on June 22, 2007 to
determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical
habitat located within the project area. In a response letter dated June 27, 2007 (enclosed), the
NCNHP stated that they have "no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
significant natural heritage areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area."
Purpose and Need for the Project
The upper portion of the channel located between 5939 and 6001 Cherrycrest Lane (Stream A) is
silting in and is preventing proper drainage from the existing pipe from Cherrycrest Lane (Photograph
A). Furthermore, the lower portion of the channel is severely incised and is exhibiting active erosion
(Photograph B). The purposes of the pipe extension within Stream A are to convey flows through the
pipe system, thereby preventing road flooding, and to eliminate the severe channel erosion that
currently exists at the pipe outlet. The use of a gabion endwall at the proposed pipe outlet will allow
the pipe discharge to "step down" the gabion wall, thereby dissipating the energy. Additionally, the
main channel located behind 6001 Cherrycrest Lane (Stream B) is experiencing downcutting and
erosion along the bed and bank (Photograph D). The existing banks and headcuts will be stabilized to
prevent further erosion.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Placement of hard stabilization and structures within Perennial Stream B has been limited
to the immediate vicinity of the pipe outlet and areas where existing headcuts are present. CSWS
considered an alternative design within Unimportant Intermittent Stream A that would have entailed
lining the entire channel with rip rap to prevent further erosion. However, extending the pipe is
preferable because it eliminates future maintenance (and site access) issues associated with
sedimentation of the pipe system and channel. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be
used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
The proposed impacts for this project include new pipe installation with associated rip rap and gabion
headwall, installation of gabion drop structures, and channel reshaping and stabilization (Figures 2 and 3,
enclosed). Proposed impacts to on-site perennial streams total 1201inear feet and impacts to on-site
unimportant intermittent streams total 341inear feet. Impacts under Nationwide Permit No. 13 include
the reshaping of 120 linear feet (120 bank feet) of Perennial Stream B. The left bank of Stream B will be
sloped back to a 2:1 slope and debris will be removed from the channel bed (see typical cross section
included on Figure 2). The right bank of the channel will remain undisturbed. The newly reshaped
banks will be lined with C-350 permanent erosion control matting. In addition, 28 of the 120 linear
(bank) feet will be stabilized by the proposed gabion wall and associated rip rap that will serve as the
endwall for the pipe in Stream A (Figure 2). The gabion wall will run 18 linear feet (18 bank feet) along
the left bank of Stream B. The tiered gabion endwall will include a "step-down" design to allow water to
cascade down to the channel invert, thereby dissipating erosive velocities. A total of 10 linear feet (10
bank feet) of rip rap will be used on the up and downstream side of the gabion wall to tie the structure
into the newly graded banks.
Proposed impacts under Nationwide No. 29 will tota1561inear feet of stream channel. Activities will
include pipe extension and associated rip rap and the installation of gabion drop structures. Impacts to
Unimportant Intermittent Stream A total approximately 341inear feet and are the result of the extension

July 12, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Page 4 of 4
of the existing 18" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) (Figure 2). In addition, a 6-linear foot rip rap splash
pad will be placed at the pipe outlet (in the bed of Perennial Stream B) to protect the bed of the receiving
channel. Additional proposed impacts to Stream B under Nationwide Permit No. 29 consist of the
installation of two 4-linear foot gabion drop structures in the bed at the location of two existing headcuts.
Each gabion will have a 4-linear foot rip rap splash pad downstream of the structure (Figures 2 and 3).
Total proposed impacts to the bed of Stream B under Nationwide Pern~it No. 29 are 221inear feet and are
located within the same stream reach as the 1201inear feet (120 left bank feet) of impacts proposed under
Nationwide Permit No. 13. On behalf of CSWS, CWS is submitting aPre-Construction Notification
Application with attachments in accordance with General Condition No. 27 and pursuant to Nationwide
Permit Nos. 13 and 29 and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3495 and 3402 (enclosed).
Compensatory Mitigation
Construction of this project has limited the amount of impacts to important stream channels to less
than 150 linear feet, therefore no mitigation is currently being proposed. These activities will result in
an overall benefit to the water quality of downstream waters by reducing bed and bank erosion.
Please do not hesitate to contact Isaac Hinson at 704-336-4495 or [e-mail] should
you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
r / ~%
___9 p~~ ~ ~i~
Isaac J. Hinson Ron G. Johnson, PWS
Wetland Specialist Senior Scientist
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Charlotte West, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts
Figure 3. Profile of Stream B
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to NWP Nos. 13 and 29 and
WQC Nos. 3495 and 3402
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1-SCP2)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP1 -SCP2)
USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Fonns
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DP1)
Representative Photographs (A - D)
Agency Correspondence
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, USACE
Z:\20071Projects\2007-1976 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance ProjedlPermitting\NWP13 report.doc

6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit Nos. 13 and 29 Protect No. 2007-1976
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Charlotte West, North Carolina quadrangle, dated 1996.
Approximate Scale 1" ° 2000'

~ 1
6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit Nos 13 and 29 Proiect No. 2007-1976
U
~~ CuD
~uD
r~~R
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS
NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sheet Nos. 6 and 7, dated 1980.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'

NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE CLASSIFIED BY CWS, INC.
ON JUNE 25, 2007. JURISDIC'T'IONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE U`.
5939
Y .. _. _
O _..
O '

LEGEND
,...~..... JURISDICTIONAL STREAM CFIANNEL
~~ PROJECT AREA
• SCP I STREAM CLASSIFICATION POINT
• DPl DATA POINT'
PHOTO LOCATION AND D[REC'fION
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 50'

~,~ CWS, Inc.
C-cw~ 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENC&. GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY LAND USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, DATED 2002.
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary
Field Map
6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2007-1976
PREPARED F3Y DATE ~ CIjECKEp DATG -
,~ ~.- ,

t 1
CARYSBRpOKLN
~~ k'dj'~
~~~
~~
R Y rf
'~ ~34LF
ermittent Stream A
Rip Rap Splash Pad
6LF
--¢--- h';P rip sp (vsk. p roc:! - yl~ .
Dmyo ~tru~~ - y lj-
Perennial Stream B
i` ,4 ~
Rip ~'~t s~las~ ~Or~c(- ~(l~~'
DaN sr-ru~fi,,,~ ~ 4~F

_._.~.
1
r
1
r~
Y
':
~ ,
1!
1!
//
~ ~
1 r - :' ..: - ':
~'
.._.~.._
~(i~
1
"loll
1 i,:C~l °Qf131S 2~ I~ef } '-
~ y..pY f~
`.~ ~ ~
r L
`.~ <~..-
~ ~~,,.
~ ~rFt~~~ t <6 hY` f s
~ f r ,'~ ~- = > > ~
` r~_:-..1: ^r, r r~,,. C-350
~~
'!,1111 ~ ..
I~ , CWS, Inc.
~~~ CWS 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY CHARLOTTE STORM WATER SERVICES, DATED
anm
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts
6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2007-1976
PREPARE^~ Y DAT r 47 CE{~CKE ~, DA'T'E7

!V9 r'1
,;~ _
~;, .___
~f}
'; _
_ , ~~~.~ ~ r,~--~
f,~'O/ ~ ~1~~'x~~= i~'~
i
Mush. -~I l~
/~. ,
,,
I,
~ ~ r
Drot; ~~ ~~~ rr r, ~'~~, F
~~ ~ cN~rl~fe~-
r -
. ~ ,~
AA~~,,: ~;~ R,»~ t
.Fy ~ Y! k ~ M~f r',r ~ 1
_.
~, , CWS, Inc.
~~~ ~s 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE, DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY CHARLOTTE STORM WATER SERVICES, DATED
2007.
Figure 3. Profile of Stream B
6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2007-1976
PREPARED BY DATE CHEG / DAT

Office Use Only' Form Version March OS
07-1213
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Hppncanie or -i~iti .~
i
I. Processing
~'~ i~~-.
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
Nationwide Permit Nos 13 and 29 and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3495 and 3402
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ~ ~ ~~~ D
II. Applicant Information JUL l 3 2007
1. Owner/Applicant Information UErIR - WA?ER QUALIN
NIETUWD3 MID $TOR411MATER BRMJGH
Name: City of Charlotte Storm Water Services Contact: Mr. Isaac J. Hinson
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte North Carolina 28202
Telephone Number:~704) 336-4495 Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: ihinson(a~ci charlotte nc us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 9

i
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 169-161-19
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Interstate 77 (I-77),
take exit #4 Nations Ford Road Travel straight on Archdale Road for approximately 1 mile
and turn left onto Cherrycrest Lane Travel approximately 0 4 mile and the site will be on
the left.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.15728 °N 80.88001 °W
6. Property size (acres): 0.604 acre
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Kinds Branch
8. River Basin: Catawba River
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The existing_ land use of the project area is residential with
small adiacent wooded areas
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: A trackhoe
and typical excavation equipment will be used for this project
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The u,~per portion of the channel located between
5939 and 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Stream A) is silting in and is preventing proper drainage
from the existin~gLpipe from Cherrycrest Lane (Photograph A) Furthermore, the lower
portion of the channel is severely incised and is exhibiting active erosion (Photograph B).
The purposes of the pipe extension within Stream A are to convey flows through the pipe
system thereby preventing road flooding, and to eliminate the severe channel erosion that
currently exists at the~ipe outlet The use of a ,gabion endwall at the proposed pipe outlet
will allow the ape discharge to "step down" the ~abion wall thereby dissipatm~ the ener~y.
Additionally the main channel located behind 6001 Cherrycrest Lane (Stream B) is
experiencing downcutting and erosion along the bed and bank (Photograph D). The existing
banks and headcuts will be stabilized to prevent further erosion.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. There is no known prior history for this site
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are no future project plans for this site
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 9

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The~roposed impacts for this protect
include new pipe installation with associated rip ra~and ~abion headwall installation of ~abion
drop structures and channel resha~in~ and stabilization (Figures 2 and 3 enclosed). Proposed
impacts to on site perennial streams total 120 linear feet and impacts to on-site ummportant
intermittent streams total 34 linear feet Impacts under Nationwide Permit No. 13 include the
reshaping of 120 linear feet (120 bank feet~of Perennial Stream B The left bank of Stream B will
be sloped back to a 2.1 slope and debris will be removed from the channel bed (see typical cross
section included on Fi ug re 2~ The right bank of the channel will remain undisturbed. The newly
reshaped banks will be lined with C-350 permanent erosion control matting. In addition, 28 of the
120 linear (bank) feet will be stabilized b~ the proposed aabion wall and associated rip rap that will
serve as the endwall for the pipe in Stream A (Figure 2) The ~abion wall will run 18 linear feet
(18 bank feet~along~ the left bank of Stream B The tiered gabion endwall will include a "step-
down" desi n to allow water to cascade down to the channel invert thereby dissipatms erosive
velocities A total of 10 linear feet X10 bank feet) of rip rap will be used on the up and downstream
side of the gabion wall to tie the structure into the new1Y graded banks.
Proposed impacts under Nationwide No 29 will total 56 linear feet of stream channel. Activities
will include pipe extension and associated rip rap and the installation of ~abion drop structures.
Impacts to Unimportant Intermittent Stream A total approximately 34 linear feet and are the result
of the extension of the existing 18" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) (Fi~,ure 2). In addition, a 6-
linear foot rip rap splash~ad will be placed at the pipe outlet (in the bed of Perennial Stream B) to
protect the bed of the receiving channel Additional proposed impacts to Stream B under
Nationwide Permit No 29 consist of the installation of two 4-linear foot ~abion drop structures m
the bed at the location of two existing headcuts Each gabion will have a 4-linear foot rip rap
splash pad downstream of the structure (Figures 2 and 3 Total proposed impacts to the bed of
Stream B under Nationwide Permit No. 29 are 22 linear feet and are located within the same
stream reach as the 120 linear feet (120 left bank feet) of impacts proposed under Nationwide
Permit No 13 On behalf of CSWS CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification
Application with attachments in accordance with General Condition No. 27 and pursuant to
Nationwide Permit Nos 13 and 29 and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3495 and 3402
(enclosed)
Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to mechanized
clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list
;mnon4c rlna to tenth etrnrtnra anfl flnnflin4
~...r...,.., ..~ ., .., ...,.-- ~ - - -- --- --- - - --o
Located within
Distance to
Area of
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland 100-year Nearest Impact
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, Floodplain Stream (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) (yes/no) (linear feet)
N/A
Total Wetland Impact (acres) N/A
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/.
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib walls,
Page 4 of 9

gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed, plans and
profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on map)
Stream A
Stream B
Stream B
Stream B
Stream B
Average
Impact Area

Perennial or
Stream Width
Len h
~ of
Stream Name Type of Impact Intermittent? Before Im act
p
(linear feet) Impact
(acres)
UT to Kings pipe Extension Intermittent 1-2' 34 if 0.001
Branch
UT to Kings Rip rap in stream perennial 3' 141f 0.001
Branch bed
UT to Kings Left bank perennial 3' 92 bf 0.006
Branch resha in
Gabion wall with 18 bf gabion
UT to Kings associated rip rap Perennial 3' + 10 bf rip 0.002
Branch along left bank rap
UT to Kings Gabion drop perennial 3' 81f 0.001
Branch structures
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 154 if 0.011
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic Ocean
and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to fill,
excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Type of Waterbody Area of
Name of Waterbody T e of Im act lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
Site Number if a hcable ~ p ( ) acres
(indicate on map) ( pp ) ocean, etc. ( )
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres) N/A
6. List the c
,.,~;.,o ;,.,.,~~.,+ +„ aii ~watP,-~ ~f the I I ~_ resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.011 acre
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.0 acre
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.0 acre
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.011 acre
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 154 if
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Page 5 of 9

8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embanlcment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Impacts to on-site
jurisdictional waters of the U S have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
Placement of hard stabilization and structures within Perennial Stream B has been limited to the
immediate vicinity of the pipe outlet and areas where existing headcuts are present. CSWS
considered an alternative desiPn within Unimportant Intermittent Stream A that would have
entailed lining the entire channel with rip rap to prevent further erosion However extending the
pipe is preferable because it eliminates future maintenance (and site access) issues associated
with sedimentation of the pipe system and channel Proper sediment and erosion control
measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
Page 6 of 9

If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Construction of this project has limited the amount of impacts to Important Streams to less
than 150 linear feet therefore no mitigation is currently being_proposed These activities will
result in an overall benefit to the water quality of downstream waters by reducing bed and
erosion.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No
Page 7 of 9

X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
2.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
I_f buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Sources of nearby impervious cover include
roads driveways and rooftops This ~roiect will not cause an increase in the impervious
covera e of the ro'ect area.
Page 8 of 9

XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: This
project is located within an existing residential subdivision No future development is scheduled
as a result of the completion of this proiect -
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Construction is scheduled to begin immediately.followin rg eceipt of the appropriate permits.
~~~
-12-07
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: Ju1~12, 2007
COUNTY Mecklenburg County North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 0.604
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Charlotte Storm Water Services
POC• Mr Isaac J Hinson at~704) 336-4495
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte North Carolina 28202
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
(X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: maintenance )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( )Project already completed
(Type of project: 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted -forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) USGS 7.5-Minute Charlotte West, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X) NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Figure 1)
(X) Proposed Impacts (Figure 2)
(X ). Profile of Stream B (Figure 3)
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 13 and 29 and WQC Nos. 3495
and 3402
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1 -SCP2)
(X) USAGE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP 1 -SCP2)
(X) USAGE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms
(X) Routine On-Site Data Form (DP1)
(X) Representative Photographs (A - D) r
(X) Agency Correspondence ~ ~~
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Aaent
Mr. Isaac J. Hinson

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 06/25/2007 Project: 6001 Cherrycrest Lane ~-atitude: N35.15728°
Evaluator:MLJ & PAB site: SCPl t_ongitude: W80,gg001°
Tots! Points: Other Unimportant Intermittent
Stream is at least intermittent 21.50 County: Mecklenburg e.g. Quad tvame: Stream A
if? i 9 ar erenniaf if ? 30 ~_
fit. Geomorpholo (Subtotal = 9.5 ~
1~. Continuous bed and bank 2.0
Sinuosity 0.0
2 Absent __
0
0 -Weak -
1
1 Moderate
2
2 Strong.. _'
3
3
.
In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0
3 ~ 0 __~
~ 1 ~
~ 2 3 1
.
4. Soil texture or stream substra_t_e_ sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9 3 Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 2.0 0 1 2
1 1
5
11. Grade controls 1.0 0 0.5 1 .
5
1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0.5 0 0.5 .
13. Second or greater order channel on existin Yes - 3
-
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0
evidence. 0.0
tvtan-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
i n
t3. H Ctr06o aupwtai - ~•~
14. Groundwater flowldischarge
1.0
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3
Water in channel -- d or rowin season 1.0
0
Leaf1itter
16 1.0 1.5 1 0.5
_
_
.
Sediment on plants or debris
17 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
1$. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines} 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphie features} present?1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
~ nn
C:. tSlolo9Y ~~u~tv~ai - v.vv i
2
1
0
Fibrous roots in channel 3.0
20° 3
.
21°. Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
Bivalves 0.0
23 0 1 2 3
.
Fish 0.0
24 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance} 0.0
26 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
Iran oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.0
28 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
Wetland plants in streambed 0.00
29 FAC = 0 5' FA CW = 0.75' OB L = 1.5 SAV = 2 .0; Other = 0 ~
.
. . __ _ .._ ________..r ... .. ~..4:.. ... .uotlonrl nl an4c
" Items ZO and 21 LOCUS On the presence of uNtanu ~iaui~, ucn~ ~~ •~+~~~`--^ ~•• `••° r•---•~-' '- -~-•- _
Sketch:
Riotes: (.use back side of~Aform for additional notes.)
v?

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 06/25/2007 Protect: 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Latitude: N35.15728°
Ewaluatar:MLJ & PAB site: SCP2 Longitude: Wg0.88001°
Total Points: Other Perennial Stream B
Stream rs at least intermittent 31 ~ o o county: Mecklenburg e.g. Quad tVame:
if? 9~or erenniaPif?30
A. Geomor holog (subtotal= 16.0 } r-_-Absent_ __ Weak _ Moderate Strong
1~. Continuous bed and bank 2.0 0 1 2 3 t
i 2. Sinuosity 1.0 0 1 2 3
-----
3. ln-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2.0
_ 0
1
2
3 ~
4. Soil texture csr stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 _ 1 2 3
5. Activefrelic floodplain 1.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
' 7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent a{luvial deposits 2.0 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 2.0 0 1 2 3 -1
11. Grade controls 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagevJay _ 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NFtCS map or other documented ( No = 0 Yes = 3
~ avirianra 0.0 -----1
~Ahan-made ditches are n°t rated: see discussions in manual
~c
a. rs u~ vcv vua~w~cai -
14. Groundwater fbwldiseharge 2.0
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dr or rovvin season 1.0 0 1 2 3
~
16. Leaflitter 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0
~ 17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5

v. oi~tivyy wuvw~w - j
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0
3
2
1
0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3 i
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
' 25. Amphibians 1.0 _ 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.0
12g °. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 0 0.5 1 1.5
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0 I
`" Items ZO and 21 focus on the presence oT upian^ plants, aern ~y un:uxa ~~ <<~~ N~~~~~~~~ ~~ uy....,.,. ~~ ••~••-~• r -• --
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Large rainstorm within 10 hours of field visit. Moderate

OFFICE USE ONLY
~ i
~~~~i
USACE AID#
DWQ#
SCP1-Unimportant Intermittent Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins and Paul Bright
3. Date of Evaluation: 6/25/07 4. Time of Evaluation: 2~OO~m
5. Name of Stream: UT to Kings Branch 6. River Basin: Catawba River
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 1 acre 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 30 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg~
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 77 (I-77), take exit #4 Nations Ford
Road Travel straight on Archdale Road for approximately 1 mile and turn left onto Cherrycrest Lane. Travel approximately 0.4 mile
and the site will be on the left.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.15728° W80.88001°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Pipe placement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: Heavy rainstorm within 10 hours of field visit
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 90 degrees and sunn
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ~ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ~ 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 100% Residential
Forested
21. Bankfull Width: 1-2'
Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
Cleared /Logged % Other
22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank)
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight -Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 22
Evaluator's Signature ~~,~/~+ Date ~~~~~
This channel evaluation form i ntended 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 ca11 9 1 9-876-844 1 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Cf P1 - TTnimr~nrtant Tntermiti'ent ~ti'eaitl A
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal' Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints
Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 0
2 extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = tnax oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 1
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = tnax oints
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
4 (extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = tnax oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 1
no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
~ Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 0
~ 6 no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints

~, Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
~ ~ dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = O; lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
11 (fine, hotno enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
~ 12 (dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
~~"' Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
13 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
E 14 (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu bout = max oints
~ Impact by agriculture or livestock production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
15 substantial im act.=0; no evidence = max oints
Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 2
16 no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
~ 1 ~ Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 1
E~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints
C~ 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
<
G no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints
T 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 1
dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0
~ 20 do evidence = 0• cotnmon numerous es = max oints
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
O (no evidence = 0; common, nuterous es = max oints

22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 22
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID#
DWQ#
SCP2 -Perennial Stream B
~ ~ ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~ ~
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins and Paul Bright
3. Date of Evaluation: 6/25/07
5. Name of Stream: UT to Kings Branch
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 50 acres
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 linear feet
4. Time of Evaluation: 2~30~m
6. River Basin: Catawba River
8. Stream Order: First
10. County: Mecklenbu~
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 77 (I-77) take exit #4 Nations Ford
Road Travel straight on Archdale Road for approximatel~l mile and turn left onto Cherrycrest Lane. Travel approximately 0.4 mile
and the site will be on the left.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.15728° W80.88001°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Stabilization
14. Recent Weather Conditions: Hea rainstorm within 10 hours of field visit
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 90 degrees and sunn
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ~ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ~ 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 100% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-6'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuasity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the cormnent 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): 34 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ~~~ ` ~"~ Date ~~s~/o ?
This channel evaluation for s 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 ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
4(''P2 -Perennial stream B
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints
Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 1
2 extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 2
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max oints
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
4 extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 1
no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
U
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
y no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints

,~,i ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
~+ dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
8 no wetlands = 0; lar a adjacent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive de osition= O; little or no sediment = max oints
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
11 fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
~''! 12 (dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
~ 1 ~ Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 1
a severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
H 14 no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max oints
~ Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
15 substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints
Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- d 3
16 no riffles/ri les or ools = 0• well-develo ed = max oints
E
~ 1 ~ Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 2
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints
Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 2
18 no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 1
20 no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max oints
~
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
a
C
22 ~ Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
~ 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 34
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Unimportant Intermittent Stream A
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): July 9, 2007
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35° 9' 26.1 ° N, Long. 80° 52' 48.6"° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Kings Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba River (HU# 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: July 9, 2007
Field Determination. Date(s): June 25, 2007
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S" within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersZ (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: 55 linear feet: 1-2 width (ft) and/or 0.002 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: I=987 DelineationMannal
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
[~ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
'- For purposes of this form, an RPW is defimed as a tributary that is not a TI~iW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1, only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: N/A.
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section 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 waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 45,00(}~cres
Drainage area: 1 acres
Average annual raintail: 43.52 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through ~ tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are W(arless)` river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 115 ,serial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (dr~,l,~ssj aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS: To UT of Kings Branch, UT to Kings Branch, Kings Branch to Sugar Creek, Sugar Creek
to Catawba River.
° 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.

Tributary stream order, if known: First.
silting in.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Outfall for existing storm water pipe.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: I-2 feet
Average depth: 3-4 feet
Average side slopes: 3:1~'.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ®Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ®Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ®Vegetation. Type/% cover: Forested canopy, 25%
^ Other. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: some pools, minor riffle presence.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2-4
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: stable, moderate erosion, evidence of
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for. Intermittent but not seasouaI tlorv
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20(`orgreater),
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: I)iserete and confitied. Characteristics
Subsurface flow: Na. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
^ changes in the character of soil ^
® shelving
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
® sediment deposition ^
® water staining
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.~ Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
^ High Tide Line indicated by: {
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne 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: clean groundwater, low turbidity.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
~A 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.
'lbid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): QO feet wide.
^ 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: 1'icle List. Explain: Wetlands are adjacent to perennial streams.
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics: inundated.
Subsurface flow: Pick (list. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
(c) Wetland Adiacency 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 PieltE~is~ river miles from TNW.
Project waters are PicCeList aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ~?ick Listl 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):Forested upland buffer, <100 feet wide on each side.
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: PiCk,Li~>
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acresl Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: flood storage and pollutant removal.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLl~:
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:
Q 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):
Q' Tributary waters: 551inear feet 1-2 width (ft).
[~ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: SS linear feetl-2width (ft).
^', Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that tlow 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: 0.02 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 APPLI~:10
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
~ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
(~ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
~] Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
$See Footnote # 3.
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 Rapanos.

Perennial Stream B
Downstream of Stream A
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): July 9, 2007
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35° 9' 26.1 ° N, Long. 80° 52' 48.6"° '~V.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Icings Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba River (HU# 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: July 9, 2007
Field Determination. Date(s): June 25, 2007
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Arend "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
[~ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
(]' Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Ard "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 T'NWs
® Relatively permanent watersz (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
^I 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: 1001inear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or 0.007 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Deliue8ttofrManual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
[Q 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.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
i. TNW
Identify TNW: N/A.
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section 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 f-nding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 45,000acres
Drainage area: 50 ,acres
Average annual rainfall: 43.52 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through Z tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are L (or ess) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 1;0=15 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1(or Less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS: UT to Kings Branch, Kings Branch to Sugar Creek, Sugar Creek to Catawba River.
Tributary stream order, if known: First.
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 aonlvl:
Tributary is: ®Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (roan-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 4-6 feet
Average side slopes: 3a+.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ®Sands ^ Concrete
® Cobbles ®Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrocl: ®Vegetation. Typei'%, cuver: Forested canopy, 50",%
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Moderate bank erosion.
Presence ofrun/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: some pools, minor riffle presence.
Tributary geometry: RelittiveTy straig)f
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2-4
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonat`f[ow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 2Q'(or greater)
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:.
Surface flow is: Cauflne~. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Y,es. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
^ changes in the character of soil
® shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
® water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
Q High Tide Line indicated by: [Q
^ 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
ne 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: clean groundwater, low turbidity.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
~A naturnl 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): <50 feet wide.
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Moderate presence.
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Weak presence of benthic macroinvertebrates and a moderate presence
of amphibians.
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 Relationshiv with Non-TNW:
Flow is: P1ck.List. Explain: Wetlands are adjacent to perennial streams.
Surface flow is: Piek List
Characteristics: inundated.
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm/tamer. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are'P1ck,Li9t river miles from TNW.
Project waters are PIc>tn~is>E aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick Llst.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick-List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):Foresteduplcnd buffer, <100 feet wide on each side.
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/Nl Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/Nl Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: flood storage and pollutant removal.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERN[INATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain.
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
Q TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
[~ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q; Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e:g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 100 linear feet 3width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWsB 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:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that Clow 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: 0.02 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 (I-6), or
^ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
^ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
^ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
^ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
sSee Footnote # 3.
~ To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdicrion Following Rapanos.

Perennial Stream B
Upstream of Stream A
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): July 9, 2007
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35° 9' 26.1 °'N, Long. 80° 52' 48.6"° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Kings Braneh
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba River (HU# 03050103)
Check ifmap/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: July 9, 2007
® Field Determination. Date(s): June 25, 2007
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There :Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): I
'Q TNWs, including territorial seas
[j Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters'- (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q 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
Q Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Q 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 lineaz feet: 3 width (ft) and/or 0.007 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 19$7Delineatlon Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Q Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s 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.i and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: N/A.
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section 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 waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 45.OOOacres
Drainage area: 50 acres
Average annual rainfall: 43.52 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationshiu with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 2d~ZS river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1(ox Tess) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 10=1:5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1:(br less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS: UT to Kings Branch, Kings Branch to Sugar Creek, Sugar Creek to Catawba River.
Tributary stream order, if known: First.
a 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 azea, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that avplvl:
Tributary is: ®Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 4-6 feet
Average side slopes: 3:1' .
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ®Sands ^ Concrete
® Cobbles ®Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ®Vegetation. Type/4% cover: Forested canopy, 50%
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Moderate bank erosion.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: some pools, minor riffle presence.
Tributary geometry: Reluti~veFy stralghti
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2-4
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or~gjreatec)
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: 1'es. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
^ changes in the character of soil
® shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
® water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ^ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects ^ survey to available datum;
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ^ physical markings;
^ physical markings/characteristics ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: clean groundwater, low turbidity.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
~A 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 OI-1WM 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): <50 feet wide.
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn azeas. Explain findings: Moderate presence.
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Weak presence of benthic macroinvertebrates and a moderate presence
of amphibians.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: P[ek Lis$. Explain: Wetlands are adjacent to perennial streams.
Surface flow is: Pick~ist
Characteristics: inundated.
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
(c) Wetland Adiacency 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 Picl~`L''igt river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Ptek,xast aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: PickT:lsti.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Dick 1Lis>s 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):Forested upland buffer, <100 feet wide on each side.
^ 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: Piclc:Lfst
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: flood storage and pollutant removal.
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 ]ifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLl~:
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.
Q Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 100 linear feet 3width (ft).
[~ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^I 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:
=t. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that tlow 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: 0.02 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)a°
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
^ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
^ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
^ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
SSee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project Date: 06/25/07
Applicant/Owner: The City of Charlotte County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, WPIT and Paul Bright State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: u land
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DPl
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
wrT ~ TEA\~
Y GVG 1 M 1 IVIY
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Quercus alba tree FACU 9 Vitis rotundifolia vine FAC
2 Alnus serrulata tree FACW 10 Hedera helix vine
3 Acer rubrum tree FAC 11 Rhus radicans vine
4 Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC 12
5 Rubus argutus shrub FAC 13
6 Ligustrum lucidum shurb * 14
7 Fescus spp. herb * 15
8 Lonicera japonica vine FAC- 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
71%
Remarks: * Please note this species was not identified to species and was therefore excluded from the FAC-Neutral test.
Greater than 50% of the dominant plant species are FAC or wetter.
...,l1l9A1 ,.,...
n 1 vrwwv 1
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrolo~y are present.
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 1 of 2 7/6/2007

cnn S
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Erion sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Drainage Class Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic U1tiC Ha ludalfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(Inches) HoriZOn (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B 5YR 4/6 Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of anon-jurisdictional upland area.
Approved by H~USACE 2/92
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2 7/6/2007

6001 Cherrycrest Lane 10~Iaintenance Project
Nationwide Permit Nos 13 and 29 Protect No. 2007-1976
Photograph C. View of Perennial Stream B, facing downstream.
Photograph D. View of eroded bank adjacent to Perennial Stream B, facing upstream.

~ ~
6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit Nos 13 and 29 Project No. 2007-1976
Photograph A. View of silted in portion of Unimportant Intermittent Stream A.
Photograph B. View of Unimportant Intermittent Stream A, facing upstream.

.~ ~ ~
North Carolina
Michael F. Easley, Governor
~~
~~~
NCDENR
Department of Environment and
June 27, 2007
Mr. Paul A. Bright
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: 6001 Cherrycrest Lane Maintenance Project; Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
CWS Project No. 2007-1976
Dear Mr. Bright:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
significant natural heritage 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.ncnhp.org for a listing
of rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map.
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
`1 et la. nF arw+a~:nn Th:~ ~ .~:..~ ~ll,"~,~ +t'e LISer tCr. 'gT.l.cki °.?7r1 ff~:~„+i ~ °t S~t.°..°,'-.~°, ifs
Program fo=.' ai.,,.l i ~o .....~..,... :.er.,..e; ~...,,. _:: y u e__..,..,..~.y g., t r c ..,
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.nconemap.com/data.html>,
or email NC OneMap at <[e-mail]>.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
4 t. ~
-~
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 None Carolina
Phone; 919-733-49841 FAX: [phone] Internet; www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/ atura!!r~
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 °~ Post Consumer Paper