20071364 Ver 1_Application_20070808

~1~ CWS
August 6, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDWQ 401/Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
~NYN!EN~~
REC~IVED
~tl ra e`er ~ ~'~~.~ ~ nl
....
Al1G J - 200
')FINE: - VMATFR ilUALIIY
YV£Tl./1!~DS.~~D STOR'~"IA T ER BRANCH
07-1364
Subject: After-The-Fact Permit Application Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 13, 29
and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3494, 3495, & 3402
West Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2007-2000
The West Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance Project is located in Charlotte, North Carolina
approximately '/4 mile west of the West Boulevard -Interstate 77 interchange (Figure 1, enclosed).
The purpose of this project was to prevent flooding and stream bank erosion within a residential area.
On June 22, 2006, NCDWQ approved this project under Water Quality General Certification
Numbers 3494 and 3495 (DWQ#06-0788). Additionally, the U.S. Artny Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) previously approved this project under Nationwide Permit Nos. 3 and 13
(Action ID 2006-32337-360). Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) has contracted CWS, Inc. to
provide an After-The-Fact Permit Application for additional impacts as a result of the construction of
this project. This permit package identifies the additional impacts from the previously submitted
permit application by CWS dated July 27, 2006.
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: 1248/1300 West Blvd. and 1268 Fordham Rd., Charlotte, NC
Waterway: UT to Irwin Creek
Basin: Catawba River (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.21715°, W80.87861°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Charlotte West and Charlotte East, NC, 1996 and 1991, respectively
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is residential with small adjacent wooded areas. Dominant
vegetation within the project area consists of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), glossy privet
(Ligustrum lucidum), red elm (Ulmus rubs), box elder (Ater negundo), red mulberry (Morus rubs),
English ivy (Hedera helix), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and various grass species
(Festuca spp.). According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg Countyt, on-site soils consist of Cecil-
Urban land complex (CuD). Cecil 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
WWW.CWS-INC.NET

August 6, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Page 2 of 5
Jurisdictional Determination
On Apri120, 2006 CWS's Ron Johnson, PWS, and Matt Jenkins, WPIT investigated on-site
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. using the USACE -Routine On-Site Determination Method. This
method is defined in the 1987 Coles 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 USACE
guidance. NCDWQ Stream Classification Forns and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
for Streams A and B are enclosed (SCP 1 and SCP2).
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are two jurisdictional stream chamiels
(Streams A and B) located within the project area (Figure 1, enclosed). Streams A and B are unnamed
tributaries to Irwin Creek and are within the Catawba River basin (HU# 03050103)4. Irwin Creek is
classified as "Class C" by the NCDWQ.
Stream A flows south under Forhaln Road until its confluence with Stream B at 1300 and 1248 West
Boulevard (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited a continuous
bed and bank and substrate consisting of sand to large cobbles. This reach had perennial flow and
average ordinary high water widths of 2-3 feet. Biological sampling within Stream A revealed a
moderate presence of caddisflies and a weak presence of crayfish (SCP1, enclosed). Perennial Stream
A scored 30 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form and 47 out of a
possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Photographs of Perennial
Stream A are enclosed as Photographs A - C.
Stream B is located east of Stream A and flows south under Fordham Road until its confluence with
Stream A at 1248 West Boulevard (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream B was evaluated to be perennial and
exhibited a continuous bed and bank, substrate consisting of sand to small boulders, and average
ordinary high water widths of 3-4 feet. Biological sampling within Stream B revealed a weak
presence of crayfish (SCP2, enclosed). Perennial Stream B scored 32.5 out of a possible 71 points on
the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form and 49 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet. A photograph of Perennial Stream B is enclosed as Photograph D.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on April 27, 2006 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. In a response letter, dated June 7, 2006, SHPO stated that they "are
aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project."
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on Apri127, 2006
to determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical
habitat located within the project area. As of the date of this submittal, a response from the NCNHP
has not yet been received. The project area is dominated by single family homes with maintained
z Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
3 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.

August 6, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Page 3 of 5
]awns. The occurrence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical
habitat is unlikely.
Purpose and Need for the Project
Streams A and B convey large volumes of water during significant storm events. The previously
existing double 30" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) under Fordham Road (Stream A) was undersized
and water overtopped the banks of the stream causing street flooding during large storm events.
Additionally, the previously existing 30" RCP in the downstream portion of Stream A was undersized
and water overtopped the driveway to 1248 and 1300 West Boulevard, thereby prohibiting access to
these residences and causing a safety hazard. The portion of Stream B adjacent to 1248 West
Boulevard was experiencing erosional damage that was causing property loss and residential flooding
during large storm events. Furthermore, the previously existing double 48" RCP under West
Boulevard, downstream of the confluence of Streams A and B was blocked causing additional
residential flooding. The purpose of this project was to replace the previously existing pipes in
Stream A with larger pipes to allow for increased flow and minimize flooding. Portions of Stream B
were stabilized to prevent further erosional damage and property loss. In addition, the West
Boulevard pipe was extended to correct safety issues and entrance conditions were improved to
prevent a backup of water.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
The use of hard stabilization on the newly shaped banks was necessary to immediately stabilize the
banks and provide protection from the sheer stress of high flow events. Laying back the banks and
using soft stabilization and bioengineering was also used to help restore natural channel habitat.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures were used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Authorized jurisdictional impacts to the two on-site perennial stream channels consisted of: 14 linear
feet of culvert extension, 35 linear feet (70 bank feet) of bank reshaping with rip rap associated with
pipe replacements, 401inear feet of mechanized channel cleaning downstream of a pipe replacement, a
total of 60 linear feet (60 bank feet) of gabion wall placement along the bank, 401inear feet
(40 bank feet) of bank reshaping and rip rap placement along the right bank (not associated with pipe
replacements), and 80 linear feet (80 bank feet) of bank reshaping with bioengineering. On January 8
and June 14, 2007, CSWS's Isaac Hinson inspected the project for Nationwide Permit/Water Quality
Certification compliance. Actual project impacts consisted of: 14 linear feet of culvert extension, 65
linear feet (88 bank feet) of bank reshaping with rip rap associated with pipe replacements, 40 linear
feet of mechanized channel cleaning downstream of a pipe replacement, a total of 77 linear feet (77
bank feet) of gabion wall placement along the bank, 60 linear feet (80 bank feet) of bank reshaping
and rip rap placement along the bank (not associated with pipe replacements), and 1001inear feet (100
bank feet) of bank reshaping with bioengineering (Figure 2, enclosed). Authorized and actual project
impacts to Perennial Streams A and B are summarized below in Table 1.

August 6, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Page 4 of 5
Table 1. Summary of Authorized and Actual Project Impacts
Authorized Unauthorized
Activi
~' Impact ActualIm act
p Impacts Nationwide
Pe
it
rm
(LF =linear feet, BF =bank feet)
Perennial Stream A
Culvert extension under West Bv. 14 LF 14 LF N/A 29
Bank reshaping with rip rap upstream of 10 LF
25 LF (30 BF)
15 LF (10 BF)
3
Fordham Rd. i e re lacement -both banks (20 BF)
15 LF (15 BF) -
Gabion wall upstream of Fordham Rd. pipe
N/A
15 LF (1 S BF) overlaps w/ 1 S LF of
13
replacement -right bank unauthorised rip rap
im acts (above)
Bank reshaping with rip rap downstream of 10 LF
22 LF (22 BF)
12 LF (2 BF)
3
Fordham Rd. i e replacement -both banks (20 BF)
25 LF (25 BF) -
Gabion wall downstream of Fordham Rd. partially overlaps ,r/
pipe replacement -left bank N/A 25 LF (25 BF) 12 LF of 13
unauthori=ed rip rap
in¢ acts (above)
Bank reshaping with rip rap at West Bv. 15 LF
i ere lacement-both banks (30 BF) 18 LF (36 BF) 3 LF (6 BF) 3
15 LF (30 BF) -
Gabion wall upstream of West Bv. pipe N/A 15 LF (30 BF) overlaps „~/ 15 LF of 13
replacement -both banks authori=ed rip rap
ina acts (above)
Mechanized channel cleaning downstream 40 LF 40 LF N/A 3
of West Bv. i e re lacement
Gabion wall downstream of West Bv. pipe 30 LF 15 LF (IS BF) N/A 13
re lacement-ri htbank (30 BF)
Bank reshaping with soft stabilization and 25 LF
bioengineering downstream of West Bv. (25 BF) 25 LF (25 BF) N/A 13
pipe replacement -left bank
Total Im acts 144 LF 214 LF 85 LF
Perennial Stream B
Gabion wall -right bank 30 LF 22 LF (22 BF) N/A 13
(30 BF)
Bank reshaping with rip rap 40 LF 60 LF (80 BF) 20 LF (40 BF) 3
(40 BF)
Bank reshaping with soft stabilization and 55 LF

bioengineering -right bank
(55 BF) 75 LF (75 BF) 20 LF (20 BF) 13
Total Im acts 125 LF 157 LF 40 LF
Impacts for Perennial Stream A total approximately 214 linear feet and total approximately 157 linear
feet for Perennial Stream B. The unauthorized gabion walls and additional rip rap placed along the
bank at the inlet and outlet of the Fordham Road culvert were necessary to sufficiently stabilize the
bank slopes, as unconsolidated fill material was discovered in the banks during construction. All
other additional impacts are the result of field changes deemed necessary to protect the banks from
erosion. Remedial corrective actions were considered but are not practicable as the additional impacts
are necessary to prevent erosion. On behalf of CSWS, CWS is submitting an After-The-Fact Permit
Application with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 27, and
pursuant to an After-The-Fact Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 13, 29, and Water Quality Certification Nos.
3494, 3495, & 3402 (enclosed).

August 6, 2007
• Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Page 5 of 5
Compensatory Mitigation
Construction of this project minimized disturbance to the channel bed to the greatest extent
practicable. Most project impacts involved bank stabilization associated with previously eroding
banks andlor pipe replacement activities. Bank stabilization will result in an overall benefit to the
water quality of downstream waters by reducing bank erosion and sedimentation, therefore no
mitigation is currently being proposed.
Please do not hesitate to contact Isaac Hinson at 704-336-4495 or [e-mail] should
you have any qu~e~sti~o~n_s or comments regarding these findings. P'
~- r~!
Isaac J. Hin on Matt L. Jenkins, WPIT
Wetland Specialist Project Scientist
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Charlotte West and Charlotte East, NC Topographic Quadrangles
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 2. Jurisdictional Impacts
After-Fact-Permit Application Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 13, and 29
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1-SCP2)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCPI -SCP2)
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPl)
Agency Correspondence
Representative Photographs (A - D)
cc: Ms. Amanda Jones, USACE
File
Z:\2007\Projeds\2007-2000 West Blvd Fordham Drive Maintenance\PennittinglATF NWP3&13 report,doc

West Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance Project
After-The-Fact Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 13, and 29 Proiect No. 2007-2000
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Charlotte West and Charlotte East, North Carolina quadr0angles, d 1ed~9 6 4
and 1991, respectively.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey

, West Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance Project
After-The-Fact Natiomvide Permit Nos. 3, 13, and 29 Project No. 2007-2000
( Cub ~ rh0. / ,
.. ~ i ~ CuD Ur ,,.
ff2 CuB \ ~~
.~ :.
\ U' ` .
UI yU)
MeB Ce6L ss .
.e /~
~,` f eD?
MeD CHHRL®~~~
EnB Cub `-'~/
EnD (county seat) -
C;.~7 ~ r~ ~ O Ur
CeB2 Me
JL -Ce62 j ,,
a Cr
CeD7 ~ CeR2 cpb °'
CeB2 p~E ,
- `\. Ur CuB
7 [ Ur j ~ ~CeU2 ra
/J ~"'~ Ce62
/ ,ti CuD
CeB2 CuB ptlE ~~ Llr Ur
{~ ~ / M O
+ CeD2 ~\(
/ ~ CuB . ~~
Cell' ..
CuD ~~ MS
MO CuD CuB:. MD
PaE
1 r
-PaE ~ 1 CuD 2 ~
Jr MeD cc. ' / L aE •.
`~2 ° -~~ PaE i
~ SCuB
MkB
Ur CuD UL i CuD
CuB
iB
S~ '.
V~
US 29/74'ce62 ~~
1'F .. ..
qti
--~ ~ Lir
,eB ur ur
reB2
r~~--
~~B
O Ce[32 pa
Go f,eD2 ~ ~ Cu6. CuB I ~ F
kB _ n Cu6 CuB
~U E}re ~p CeB2 CeD2 CuD 'I \
Me8 ~ ~~~ ~ CuB X CuD
Pd ~ _:uD ~
CeD2 SITE
CeB2 - \ Ur _ X 'S
Fob, _/ CuB ~ CeB2 ~ I -
/ lll/// _M,~ 1 ~~0.
~ J
Ur CeD° ~. Ce62 ~... - - ~-./
~ CuB \ n
CeB2 PaE CeB2 a. /
J, ,~ ~ West Blvd ~ ~ - !~-' ~,
rO. \ R, ~r MO ~~ ~ Cu6
CeB2 ~~ \\ vQ ~~~ ~
~_ Foe _/~~_. PaE
t.4 ~ ~ ~ Ce.D2 ~~
O Ur CuD
u. , fq0 w ' CeD2 •'~
CuB Ce6?
MeD MeB MO
_ M O C~
/' CeD'2 CuB UL PaE r_ Ur
CuD
'1 CeB2 o CuD
CuB .p I CuB .
MG y
\ EnB Cep1 b
:B -
CeB2 MU ~2
En6 \ ` MeB /\ ~ ceDZ a~E I I, `Q 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 DETERMINED AND CLASSIFIED
BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. (CWS) ON APRIL 20, 2006..IURISDICTIONAL
• FL=A`rURES I-LAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED QY THI: USAGE.
i
~ ~
I I ,. ' :,
`~I 1268 ;~~
ordham Rd
~' ~ --
Existing Double 30" RCPs
i --
~° ~ ~ -~
,~
,•'
.~

I

Rd T--
-~
.,
___ _
.~=
~~~ ,
''~ ~ ~ ~
LEGEND
.~ .JURISDICTIONAL STREAM CHANNEL
EXIS'F1NG PIPE/CULVERT
• SCP1 STREAM CLASSIFICATION POIN"F
• DP1 DATA POINT
APPKOXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 100'

,~ CWS, Inc.
~~ 4""WS 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCES GIS LAYERS PROVIDED DY MECKLENI3URG COUNTY LAND USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, DATED 2002.
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary
Field Map
West Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2007-2000
PRLPARI'D B}' 1~.41'I' (IIFCk P:D DATF.

NOTE: .IURISD[CTIONAL WA'T'ERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMWP.D AND CLASSIFIED
BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. (CWS) ON APRIL 20, 2006. IMPACTS WERF, /
INSPECTED f3Y CSWS ON JANUARY 8 ANU JUNE 14, 2007.
I~
12ss Rip Rap and Bank Reshaping ! _ l
_ ~~
Fordham Rd 10 Linear Feet (20 bank feet) ~___.-__ -_I
~ n~. .. ., .._ ~,
Gabion Wall: 15 LF (15 BF)
~~~~ overlaps w/ 15 LF of rip rap
,_~~
~~
eplacemen'$~~ -
42" RCP
Rip Rap and Bank Reshaping
(near eet a
~c. t(_ nk feet)
Gab__ic~rt__~'iiall: 25 LF (25 BF}---~ ;_
partially overlaps w/ 22 LF of rip rap
t
Perennial Stream A
I

West Blvd
~ LEGEND
^ ^ ^

Bank Reshaping with
So Stabilization and Bioengineering
55 Linear Feet (55 bank feet)
„.._,,, .. (f r ..
1300
West Blvd
Fordham Rd
i
i
--
Perennial Stream B
25 Foot Gabion (Right Bank)
/ .~Gr.;`i.~:~?I ii?"1t to .,: ~ LF y~~ BF)
Rip Rap & Bank Reshaping
~ Culvert Extension
14 Linear Feet _ --
.Feet (40_Bank Feet)
/ ~~t]'nearnpacts: 50 t_F (80 BF) _.__ ._-.,
- ,
~_
_ '
Mechanized Channel Cleaning
40 Linear Feet
Culvert Re~l~cement
Double 42 CP
I_
_ -
~__ '__:
_ __
Rip Rap & Bank Reshaping
15 Linear Feet (30 bank feet)
,~,~tu~li ;. ;ial(:t~.: ~8 LF (aril E'~1=}
Gabion Walls: 15 LF 30 BF~
I=; ~~,~, ., '_-,- of rsp t(?}>
Bank Reshaping with 30 Foot Gabion (Right Bank)
Soft Stabilization and Bioengineering ,actual Impacts: 15 LF (15 BF)
25 Linear Feet (25 bank feet)
_.__ _
i _ _ __,
_ i, I
I
~, , .
JURISDIC"rIONAL STREAM CIiANNEL
EXISTING PIPE/CULVERT
CULVERT REPLACEMEN'T'/ EXTENSION
GA[310N WALLS
RIP RAP & [SANK REST-{APING
I APPROXIMATE SCALE: I" = 100'
.I CWS, Inc.
C~~ ~ws 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
~ Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY LAND USE AND
Figure 2. Jurisdictional Impacts
West Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2007-2000
PREPARED BY DATE CH;7CI:ED~ DACE
~t~.S 8.3-07 Eh(~) ~I ~ CZ

PAYM EN-f
RE(;LIVED
Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(it any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
0 7- 1 3 6 4
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: After-The-Fact
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 13, 29, and Water Quality Certification Nos 3494 3495 & 3402
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 Mana..g~.e~me~nt Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), chec ~• (~ i
II. Applicant Information AUG ;y - 2001
1. Owner/Applicant Information DEiVR - WATER QUALITY
Name: City of Charlotte Storm Water Services Contact: Mr Isaac J H~i~i~'Pg ~,~o sTOR!~vAT~R Bah
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Telephone Number: [phone] 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: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

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
USAGE 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: West Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 119-023-07, 119-032-07, and 119-032-08
4. Location
County: __Mecklenbur~ Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Charlotte, travel
south on Interstate 77 (I-77) to the NC 150/ West Blvd exit (Exit # 9A) Travel
approximately % mile to 1238/1300 West Blvd.
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): 35.21715 °N 80.87861 °W
6. Property size (acres): 1.28 total acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Irwin Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba
(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 proiect area is residential surrounded by residential
areas.
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This
protect performed maintenance on residential stream channels within the City of Charlotte
A trackhoe and typical excavation equipment will be used for this protect
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: __ Streams A and B convey lame volumes of water
during significant storm events. The previously existing double 30" reinforced concrete pipe
(RCP) under Fordham Road (Stream A) was undersized and water overtopped the banks of
the stream causing street flooding during large storm events Additionally the previously
existing 30" RCP in the downstream portion of Stream A was undersized and water
overtopped the driveway to 1248 and 1300 West Boulevard thereby prohibiting access to
these residences and causing a safety hazard The portion of Stream B adtacent to 1248 West
Boulevard was experiencing erosional damage that was causing property loss and residential
flooding during large storm events. Furthermore the previously existing double 48" RCP
under West Boulevard, downstream of the confluence of Streams A and B was blocked
causing additional residential flooding The purpose of this protect was to replace the
previously existing pipes in Stream A with larger pipes to allow for increased flow and
minimize flooding. Portions of Stream B were stabilized to prevent further erosional damage
and property loss. In addition the West Boulevard pipe was extended to correct safety issues
and entrance conditions were improved to prevent a backup of water
1V. 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. On June 22 2006 NCDW a roved this ro'ect under Water ualit
General Certification Numbers 3494 and 3495 (DWQ#06-07881 Additionally the USACE
previously approved this protect under Nationwide Permit Nos 3 and 13 (Action ID 2006-
32337-3601 This permit package identifies the additional impacts from the previously submitted
permit application by CWS dated July 27 2006.
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 protect 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
Page 3 of 9

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.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Authorized 1urisdictional impacts to
the two on-site perennial stream channels consisted of 141inear feet of culvert extension 35
linear feet (70 bank feet) of bank reshaping with rip rap associated with pipe replacements
40 linear feet of mechanized channel cleaning downstream of a pipe replacement a total of
60 linear feet (60 bank feet) of gabion wall placement along the bank 401inear feet (40 bank
feet) of bank reshaping and rip rap placement along the right bank (not associated with pipe
replacements), and 80 linear feet (80 bank feet) of bank reshaping with bioengineering On
January 8 and June 14, 2007 CSWS's Isaac Hinson inspected the project for Nationwide
Permit/Water Quality Certification compliance. Actual project impacts consisted of 14
linear feet of culvert extension, 65 linear feet (88 bank feet) of bank reshaping with rip rap
associated with pipe replacements 40 linear feet of mechanized channel cleaning
downstream of a pipe replacement, a total of 77 linear feet (77 bank feet) of gabion wall
placement along the bank, 60 linear feet (80 bank feet) of bank reshaping and rip rap
placement along the bank (not associated with pipe replacements) and 100 linear feet (100
bank feet) of bank reshaping with bioengineering (Figure 2 enclosed) Authorized and
actual project impacts to Perennial Streams A and B are summarized in Table 1 of this report
Impacts for Perennial Stream A total approximately 214 linear feet and total approximately
157 linear feet of impacts for Perennial Stream B. The unauthorized gabion walls and
additional rip rap placed along the bank at the inlet and outlet of the Fordham Road culvert
were necessary to sufficiently stabilize the bank slopes as unconsolidated fill material was
discovered in the banks during construction. All other additional impacts are the result of
field changes deemed necessary to protect the banks from erosion Remedial corrective
actions were considered but are not practicable as the additional impacts are necessary to
prevent erosion.
2. 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 impacts due to tenth ctn~ctnre anal flnnrlina
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number T e of Im act
yp p
(e.g., forested, marsh, 100-yeaz Neazest Impact

(indicate on map)
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(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/A
Page 4 of 9

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, 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, multi ly length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Perennial or Stream Width Length Impact

(indicate on map) Intermittent?
Before Impact
(linear feet)
(acres)
Nationwide Permit No. 3
Stream A UT to Irwin Creek Rip Rap w/ Bank Perennial 2-3' 65 if 0
004
Reshaping .
Stream A UT to Irwin Creek Mechanized perennial 2-3' 40 if 0
003
Channel Cleaning .
Stream B UT to Irwin Creek Rip Rap w/ Bank perennial 3-4' 60 if 0
005
Reshaping .
Nationwide Permit No. 13
Stream A UT to Irwin Creek Gabion Wall Perennial 2-3' 70 if 0.005
Stream A UT to Irwin Creek Bank Reshaping w/ perennial 2-3' 25 if 0
002
Soft Stabilization .
Stream B UT to Irwin Creek Gabion Wall Perennial 3-4' 22 if 0.002
Stream B UT to Irwin Creek Bank Reshaping w/ perennial 3-4' 75 if 0
007
Soft Stabilization .
Nationwide Permit No. 29
Stream A UT to Irwin Creek Culvert Extension Perennial 2-3' 14 if 0.0009
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 371 if 0.0289
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, dred~in~, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number
(if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on map) ocean, etc.) (acres)
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres) N/A
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.0289
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.00
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.00
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.0289
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 371 if
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Page 5 of 9

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.
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 embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe 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. Construction of this project
minimized disturbance to the channel bed to the greatest extent practicable Most project
impacts involved bank stabilization associated with previously eroding banks and/or pipe
replacement activities. Bank stabilization will result in an overall benefit to the water quality of
downstream waters by reducing bank erosion and sedimentation therefore no mitigation is
currently being proposed.
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
Page 6 of 9

aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USAGE 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.
1. 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 hard stabilization to 165 linear feet
The remaining stream impacts (154 linear feet) are a result of soft stabilization techniques
and will result in an overall benefit to the water quality of downstream waters by reducing
bank erosion and sedimentation, therefore no mitigation is currently being proposed
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 (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of
public (federaUstate) 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.
Page 7 of 9

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
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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 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
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* I Impact I Required
Zone ~~~..,.,.o ~ o+~ Multiplier
1 I I 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 proiect will not cause an increase in the impervious
coverage of the project 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: Proiect
area is located within awell-developed area of Charlotte no future development will result from _
the completion of this project.
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).
Work completed on project.
~a~.,~
J r~~r'~
8/6/07
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

North Carolina E}ivison of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.9
°a~' 04/20/2006
Evaluator:RGJ & MLJ
Total Points:
Sfream is at beast rn~rnatterrt
if? 19 or eserrrriaf if ? 3Q
Project: West Blvd./Fordham Rd.
site: SCPl
County:
Latitude: N 35° 13' 3"
Longitude: W 80° 52' 43"
Other Perennial Stream A
e.g. Quart Plarrre:
A. Geornor polo y (Subtotal = 14.5 1 Alaserrt Weak Moderate' Strong..
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 1 0 1 2 3
2 Sinuosity 1,0 0 1 2 3
3. tn-channel structure; riffle-pool sequence 2,0 0 1 2 3
4. Soi! texture or stream substrate sorting 2,0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic#loodpiain 0,0 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 aNuvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Fleadcuts 2,0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade eontrols 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12 Natural valley or drainageway 1,0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
t1SGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
avrar+-mace as,cnes are na raceu; see n~scussians in rt~nual
B. Hvdroloav fSubtatal = 9.0 3
14 Groundwater fbv+ddischarge 3,p 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rovvin season 2.0 0 1 Z 3
18. Leafiitter 1.0 1 1.5 1 fl.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0,5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris tines or plies (Wrack lines) 1, p ! 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) preseni?l,s 1 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biotow {Subtotal = 6.50
20~_ Fbrous roots in channel 2,0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3,0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 ' 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivahres 0.0 0 1 2 3
24- Fdsh 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25_ Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26_ tUlacrobenthos (note diversify and abundance} 1,0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Ftamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacberiaffungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29°. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Stems ~v a~a n roeus on me presence of upland plants, Item Z9 Buses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use [hack side of this farm for additional nates.j,
Weak crayfish, moderate caddisflies.

North Carolina B}ivision of Water Quality -Stream identification Form; Version 3.'!
~= 04/20/2006 PrajecZ West Blvd./Fordham Rd. Latrtude: N 35° 13' 3"
Evat"ati°rRGJ & MLJ site_ SCP2 ~'Ongltude: W 80° 52' 43"
Total Paints: Other Perennial Stream B
,~~ ~ ~>~t ~~.Jr® ~uflty: Mecklenbur e.g. Rued ~'Vame:
A. Geomo polo {Subtotal = 16.5 2 ~laserit Weak: tUlorisrate Sircang:
~.a ~~0~~ bed and ~~ 3.0 s 0 1 ~ 2 3
2 S`inuos~ly 2. p ~ 0 1 2 3
3. 9n-channel S~Iruc~ure= n~pool sequence 3.0 0 1 2 3
~_ ~~ ~ttrre or stream substrate sorting 3.0 ~ 0 1 2 3
5_ e4c~+veJreic tloodptain 0.0 0 1 2 3
~_ l~ep~ional bars or benches 0,0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. 12ecent awuvral 1.0 0 1 2 3
a
9~ terms 0.0 ~
0
1
2
3
~~ ~ 2.0 0 1 2 3
~'q _ Grade wNtrds 1, 5 0 0.5 1 1.5
B~ Natural aralley or drairtac~e~aay 1, 0 0 0.5 1 1.5
93_ Second or greaser order channel ort eaci~fiEn
EdSGS cir NRC s n't~ or atlter documented
0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
u~~ur-~Hrac~e ~aaes are nac rarea: see ~cesssrons ur mattuar
B_ 1-flvrirc~lncter (~rthf~r~Fal = 9.5 1
14_ Croorcnd+,t~ler tiavrd'disc~rarc~e 3.0 0 1 2 3
1~_ der in channel and > $8 hrs s~sce ram, or
Water in cdrannel -dry or rows season
2.0 0 1 2 3
~~- !-~~ 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
7~_ Sedim~errt ~ pfanCs or detnris 0,5 0 0.5 1 1.5
'!~_ ~t~rgartic debris flees ~ gtiles (Vthack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
~~_ E-ly+dric sods {rt~rrorlshic features) present?l .5 ° 4~0 = 0 Yes = 1.5
c_ ~io~rnr ~st~itc>fal = ~_5n ~
_ roots n channel 3,0 3 2 1 0
~4 _ Doted plarels in dzanne~ 3.0 3 2 1 0
~ ~ 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
~- ~~ 0.0 0 1 2 3
~~- ~~ o.0 0 o_s 1 i.s
~- ~4re~h~tares 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
~_ l~croberr~OS (Hate dnrersity and abundance) 0.0 0 0.5 ~. 1.S
27_ FFarrteretmus algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
~. boon oxidi®ttg baderia~ungt.ts_ 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
~~- iltd ~~ ~ streambed 0.00 ~ FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; 08L = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
u~~e, .tv ~u ~ s aavs an sne presence ~ uprana ptattrs, I[ern L3 toctrses on the presence ~ aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
gates {ease back side aF this famr for additicxta! nates_j.
Weak crayfish

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCPI -Perennial Stream A
' ' ST~AIVI QUA~I'I'Y A~S~SSl~i~~1'~' ~ri~flR~SE'~'
S.r '. :-.
~'.
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 3/20/06 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:00 pm
S. Name of Stream: UT to Irwin Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 80 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte, travel south on Interstate 77 (I-77) to
the NC 1S0/ West Blvd. exit (Exit # 9A). Travel approximately. % mile to 1238/1300 West Blvd.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N3S° 13' 3". W80° S2' 43"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): maintenance
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
1S. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 80 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?~ NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 100 % Residential _% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested % Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 2-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-4'
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: Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of l00 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 47 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ~°`~G' ~ Date ~~~o C
This channel evaluation form Mended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners nd nvironmental 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 OS/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

~~~'1- ~'e~-~nn~al StrEa~n A
- CgI:_~~.~CTER[S~T~C'S' - - - ~E(~R~GL(~`v P(3~'~T ~~~~~ ~ ~C ORE
~ Eoasrnl
~ ~ Piedmani ~ ~Totrntain. ~
--
Presence o~ thrw.~"p~rsisieg~pQOlsti~st~eartr. _ I
U- ~ ~)--~; 0-~~ 3
i"R~ tln.vrn-¢ahiraftinrr-(1•s~etrnno~"t7n~sz~-maY.,ni„tel~ _ ~~
= - -- r-----',
~v-idertc~ o~past huma~alt~ration I-
~

- ~-

(extensive alteratian"= 0; nQ alteration -max points). ~- 6 ,~ _. ~ r~ ,-
2
~~igarian~zane~ i _
Sao puffer = w cantiguous_v~ide°Buffer ma~:points~ ~) ~~ i} - ~ ~i - ~ I 2
Evidence of nutrient or chemical- discharges i
' ~ e:crenstue discharges- 0;,;20. dscharges=~max points) i p ~ I 3
C~rounc)Fwater ~lischarge~
i ~
~i ~
(no ~u;ch ire = 0: ~prings,seep.5.:~etIands, e~c'_ = ma;L pomtsJ 0-_ 0-~ !)--L I 2
I
= ~ ~~ Presertee~of adjacen~fI'oodpl~" ~ j
~` ' a
~-~ ~ ino tloodplain ~ J`. ; ~te~lsi~: ~ tluodpla~='~maY pc?%nts1. ~ 0`-_-I 0 ~ ~ 11 -~" ~ 0
Entrencli~ent ~ tloodgl"ai~aecess ~ -
~

(deeply ~nrre~LCkecL- 0;.~'equer~t ffoading-rma.~-priin~i ~ l) ,
r
) ~~ ~-. (} _ 1

~ Yresenc~~ ad'aeent:~etYands
1.
~
~
~~ -

(ilo "~.uetl'ands 0", large•aeiiacent~watlan~ls = ma.~ poiutsi U- h r) - ~
0
0 -?°
'i
g i ~Fannel sinaosit~ I

~

t ~tcnsive ~ h~~elizatian- E}; riaturai~meartder" = maa~poin~s )
~
l) - ~ ~ f) -~- l
Q - ~. li
'I lr) ~ ~edinientinput
~ ~

(~StC-S1A C tlepOS2rl~n= !};; l1t[leF~7rr~Q. ae:ilIIlcal€-
= maX ~Q11ELS 1 ~~
~ 0~ 0~--F 0'--}
3
j ~I
~
' ~~ ~ i S~eB~d~ersi of channel~bed~suhstrate. I ,
'
~~
~
f
(fine, homogenous = 0~ Large; diverse: sizes = max pats I ; :~ F F~* ~)- -+ i 0 - ~ 3
'~,
, ! 'Evidence°of~elia~nei%neisio~~a~v~ideiring~°
~
1
i i ~ic~ly incised'- 0; stable lzed & banks"= ma~~.points~': 2

' Presence of rnajou"tiank failur~s3
.
i 1 I
i;eeere erosion.- 0,; nn,erosionrstahle;banks ~ max
oints) - 0:
- ~ 0- ~~ 0~ - 5 3
p
=" ~ ~ Iraot depth and, density on banks-
~
(no"visble-ioats O;.denserootsthrougbou~-max.pointsj I
1` L~ngaceh~ agriculture or livestock production
id

'(substantial iinpae~-0; naeviden~e = max points)
fI'-S
0 -~ ~)
I
4
I i r7 P~esence~,of~~ff~-pooUripple-gooLcomplexes" ~

_
(no ~~LTes~'rippies=orpaoLs~ 0; well=developed= max points).:..
, 0 3 0- ~ 0- 6 3

-t J _ "
~ Habitatcomplexty
~~Iittle or no"habitat- O;.frequent, yaried3hahitats- max.points~- "
0~ ~>
CI ~~ ~~-n
3
.;* I l~ I C~atiopy cn~erag~river_streambed"
~ S ~
~ ~ _
0'
~ 0

_
- (n~o shading vegeta~oa~= 0;. continuous-canopy~
= maY poiuts-~
'-
~ -
-- 3
I L~. ~S~bstrate embeddedness
~
(deeply ernFiedd'ed- 0; loosesttiaeture= ma~~p ~`4`
~ ~ ~) `~ -'
---~

~~ Presence of strea~-invertehrates" ~
~
(no evidence (l; common
numerous tepes rnaxpo~ts) ~~_~, ~' ~
~ ~~ ~ -'
r
,
2
:Ir ' Presence o~amp~'bians"
'
. (noevidenee:=Ot.commarr,.numerous:tvpes max.paints~ _-~ ~ 0-4
0-4 0 0

~ ~~ EEte~ercceokl3sb
~~' ~ i O - ~ ~
~
0
(~o~evidence - O: r~mmor~ numerous-topes =max~points). ~
,,
' Evidence~o~'wil'dl~fe r~se~
~ -- ono e~.~idenc~ - ~~:: abund;Jnt ~-cadence mils points}" 0 - tr i ~J ~ ~ ;~ i 1
~o$al:P6it~sPossibl~ ~~~~ 1~J}~. '~ ~' 1 ~I0» L0(~ r
~" ~; ~.
- ~ . ~ - -~
TOTAL 5(= tXf2E (~15~ inter. on"first p~~re.}.~ ., ` ~, 47
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

DWQ#
SCP2 -Perennial Stream B
1 7~3 9
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 3/20/06 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Irwin Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 170 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte, travel south on Interstate 77 (I-77) to
the NC 150/ West Blvd. exit (Exit # 9A). Travel approximately % mile to 1238/1300 West Blvd.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35° 13' 3", W80° 52' 43"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): maintenance
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 80 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel. appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 100 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 3-4' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
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: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 49 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature w'd G ~~- Date y°~~9~06
This channel evaluation for mtended.to be used only as a guide to assist landowners na d environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID#

~~+ A~ '~~.~ r~SS~SSlyI~N'~' ~Vt~SE'~'
S~~'2 - ~'erennial Strewn B
C' ~~~~Z:at/'T~R:STICS=
~Cc~i2E~TO~~i PQLtiT R~~G~. r ~C©~E i
iruastal Piedmont i VIotu~Yain .' ~"~°
1 rresence o~tlorw/persistent goals iii strewn ~ ~
~
- ~ ~~- -R } - ~ I
,no ac~u or saturatinn".= 0;~ strong,'ffaw: ,mom paints) i i` 4
~. evidence i~fpas~itumantalteratian~ _ !
I
~
_
0-o n - ~ ~ .) _,
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration.= inax pointy i
Riparian zone i ~
~ (nogbuffer= ~J; contiguous;; wide.buffer- max pointy i rl - 6 i) - ~ I r)_ ~ 2

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemucai°c~schar;es"
~
0~ i) -- ~~ I
r l =~~ 2
(extensive_discharges-- 0; no discharges".-~~tax point~l ~t
- ~ ~raun~£~at~dYSClar~e I i
- b
t) - ~) .~... ~~ ~. 2
'"~ inosciicnat~=e - ©; spr~ngs,_seeps, wetlandg;.er<:_=rna~ pointsi ` I
'~ ~ eresence of adj°acnntfiood' Isin
._ (ilo tLx~dplairt - 0. 'ttens~ve" tTi~odplarn- matt paints i
~.
- Ei~tzencliment/"~oodgla~ access" ", ~ ~ i
-'
;

,
i deepi;, ~ntrehchedf= Q:fxequent flooding= mat points}; ~: -
~~ ~
~ `P~esene~ of ad'acent,~etlands
1 i=
I
I

ino «edand~ -,O;..large adjacent tveilands~- matt, pc~intsl= it - h<
U -~ L" it Z p

4 ~hanne!~sinuo~ity-~ ~ ~
~

(,.~tta~i~,~ ,~hai7neIizaton:= 0~ natural`meander=tnax points) (k-i (1--F
~)-3" 2
~ i
~ 10 tiedimenf input I
'~
~

0~
U -~= 0-s
~c_it~-n~i~u uepo~~~un.=.0; Iittl~orno sedi~enrr.=lna.~ potii~sl I~
11 Size°&"-diversity. o~cltanneI bed`subStrate
(tl n~°-- }~omogenous - 0: large;, diverse sizes;= maL points } ~3

l:? Evic%nce of ekagne~iucistonor"wicfening _ ~ ~
~ tideeply incised = O;sta6le bed: ~ banks;'- maw poitt~ i ~ J 4 I, ~) a ~ ~) - ; 2
13 Presence of rnajor"bank:failures I
I
(severeerasioh 0; no erasion, stable:banks = ma~ppii~rs)d ', Q ~ ti - ~ !~- ~ 2
~~ ~ I~- R'oot d`egth and=d`ensit~on""banks
~
' U
~
' (no"visi
ble~raots 0; dense roots thratighout.: max points}_ -`~ )~ - ~ 2
-
1=
~ I Impact by agriculture or livestock production:
~
?
~
(`substantial impact 0; no: evidence"- rnax. points.`)" Q-S ~ 0-~ +) ~
i 4

1 `~ Presence of ritffe-pool/rigple-pool"cam,plexes_
~
_ ~ (no ri~Ces/ripples" orpools_ 0; well-de<~eIoped = rnax points)
I ~~ - ~ ~ - , ~ ~) `~ 3
-" i
17 Haliitatcomglesity, ~ I
'
- 6` 4
(little or no habitat"- O; fi-equent" variedhabitats ma,~; poutts 1 ~ ~ F' ~~ `' ~ 0
~~ IS ~ ~anapy" cavera~eHover streambecE ~- ~~
Q
))
~
~
~
__ _
o -~ 3
-
fno shadin ve etati,ono 0; continuous>cana
~
g g. py=~ max points) ,
I

1
9 Substrate embeddedness`~
~ ~
'
~

~
i
, Q - ~ ~-4' '~ 3
(deegl~-embedded =~0;.loose:stntcture =ma.~}~
-~-`'`"`
~
20 1?resenceofstrea~m:invertebrates.

~ (no evidence: 0; common; numerous- types:-= max.pomts) Or ¢ ~ _ ~` 4'- 5 I 2
_
i
''' 21'
.." I'resence~a~ a~nghibians

-
(no evtdence~=0; common; numerous;types~-max points} _
Q'~ ~ ~ fl' `~ ~~' `I` ~ 0

`= 2~ Preseac~af fish ' ~ i
~ ~ I n ~ ~ ~) ~ 0
M _ (na evidence"- d; common;.numerous~_types-=maxmpoints}
23 _ ' 1{Jvidence af~rvildlife iise~ _

(no°evidence 0;. alinndactt°e~cidenLe -~tna~ porint~~) 0~- C 0 - ," 4~ S~ ~ 1
~ ~~
~.
Totalfoints~Possibte:~ fr~ '1C0" r;, 'i - ~ lf~Q~ ,: ~. ~1[}[3~" , r i
'~ ~~~ ~
TUT_~L 5C(IRC (~lsc~~erncr~~t~tirstp~~~~e;l' I, ~9
* These charactenstlcs are not assessed m coastal streams.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE 1NETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Nest Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance Project Date: 04/20/06
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Storm Water Services County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Icon Johnson, WPIT and NIatt Jenkins 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: DP1
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant PI nt S e ies Stratum In icator Dominant Plant Species ra m Indicator
1 Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC 9
2 Toxicodendron radicans vine FAC 10
3 Ulmus rubra tree FAC 11
4 Acer negundo tree FACW 12
5 Blorus rubra tree FAC 13
6 Hedera helix vine - 14
7 Ligustrum lucidum shrub - 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
All of the dominant plant sp ecies are FAC or wetter
HYDROLOGY
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 U
pper 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: >12 (in.) ~~ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrolog, are p resent
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page I Of Z 5/3/2006

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cecil-1Trl3an land COn1~leY ,CuD~ Drainage Class well-drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T iC Ha ludultS Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Mois (Munseil Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structu(e, etc.
0-12 B SYR 5/6 N/A N/A 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? Ye 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 HQUSACE 2192
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page Z O~Z 5/3/2006

3 Yi. SrATF 4
~~~~
C
~~ ~ ~~
Cuun
1~©rt~ far®lina ~e~arterlt ®f ~~1t~ra1 des®~rces
State historic preservation ®ffice
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
b[ichac] h. Easley, Governor
I.isbeth (:. Gcans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 7, 2006
Matt Jenkins
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Division of I Iistorical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: West Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance, CWS # 2006-1404, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
ER 06-1196
Dear NIr. Jenkins:
Thank you for your letter of April 27, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you fox your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
~~ ~ . ~'
~~ ~~~
Peter Sandbeck
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4017 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276914617 [phone]/73:x8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 1617 ~1ail Sen•ice (:enter, Raleigh NC 2769~~17 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING S 15 N. Blount Strcct, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Sen-ice Center, Raicigh NC; 2769'14617 (9t J) rx33-0545/7t 54801

West Boulevard/Fordham Road Maintenance Project
After-The-Fact Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 13, and 29 Project 1!`0. 2007-2000
Photograph B. View of gabion wall and associated rip rap, facing upstream of Fordham Road.
Photograph A. View of gabion wall, facing downstream from Fordham Road.

r
West Boulevard/Fordham fZoad Ndaintenance Project
After-The-k'act Nationwide Permit Nos 3 13 and 29 Project No. 2007-2000
s~~y~~~~;st~ ~ ~tT e` ~:
z„ ~ as ~ ~ti~ ~,., +~' "5rc~y~.`,
~~.
~'

s

~ 5
~ ~
,
~
p~ ~~ }.Y
~ X24
~ K ' ~A ~~4k~
~ ~£ r
.. ~ ,. ._
.. f r., ~, .g,
K+~yRx' i~ ~ V Y 1 ~ ~ '„Yi '~:

~~~~r~. z •w, ro ..
Photograph C. View of Perennial Stream A, facing upstream from West Boulevard.
Photograph D. View of confluence of Streams A and B, facing north from West Boulevard.