20140670 Ver 2_401 Application_20150515

i
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
April 30 2015
Ms. Karen Higgins
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
7_7
MAY 5 2015
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permits No. 33
and Water Quality Certification No. 3893
Haul Road and Stockpile Area at the Reedy Creek Park and Nature Preserve
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services ( CMSWS), Wildlands Engineering, Inc. ( Wildlands) is
submitting four copies of the Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) package for a proposed haul road and
stockpile area at the Reedy Creek Park and Nature Preserve in conjunction with the Briar Creek - Chantilly Water
Quality Improvement Project and Briar Creek /Edwards Branch Stream Restoration Project (SAW- 2014 -02133 &
NCDWR # 14- 0670). The proposed off -site disposal area is located in northeast Mecklenburg County, NC on
publicly -owned Reedy Creek Park and Nature Preserve (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed haul road and associated
project area are displayed on Figure 3.
Goals and Objectives
The proposed haul road and stockpile area would provide access and storage for stockpile dirt from the Briar
Creek /Edwards Branch Stream Restoration Project which is going to construction in May 2015. The stockpiled
dirt is intended to be utilized for construction of the proposed Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project.
Construction of the proposed stream restoration project is projected to occur between 2016 and 2018 after
which time the haul road and stockpile area would be removed. The Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project is
currently in the conceptual design phase and a separate permit application will be filed for the Reedy Creek
Stream Restoration Project. CMSWS understands no future approvals for permit applications or mitigation plans
for the Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project are implied by issuance of any permit for the haul road and
stockpile area (see letter enclosed). Construction of the haul road is proposed for late spring (likely May —June)
2015. A construction entrance would be established at an existing driveway access point off of Plaza Road
Extension. Installation of silt fence and haul road would then begin and parallel a portion of Reedy Creek before
turning to the northwest to utilize an existing sewer right -of -way along Hood Creek. A temporary crossing
would be installed across Hood Creek to access a fallow field proposed for stockpiling. Once the stockpile area
and associated erosion control measures are established, suitable dirt would be brought in from the Briar Creek/
Edwards Branch Stream Restoration Project. Soil will be hauled and stockpiled throughout most of the Briar
Creek- Chantilly and Briar Creek/ Edwards Branch construction phase, which is expected to begin in May 2015
and continue for 12 months. The haul road would be 16' wide and include a 6" layer of stone underlain by filter
fabric. An option of using logging mats as necessary will be discussed with the contractor prior to construction.
The haul road and stockpile area would be utilized through May 2016 at which time the temporary crossing
would be removed. The haul road and proposed wetland impacts would remain for the proposed stream

project projected to begin in late 2016. The haul road, temporary crossing, and additional activities would be re-
permitted for the Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project in 2016, prior to the start of construction.
As a condition of the Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) granted by Mecklenburg County Park &
Recreation, the haul road and stockpile area must be removed and restored to pre - project conditions after
construction of the Reedy Creek Stream Restoration project, OR, if the project for some reason does not go to
construction, then the City of Charlotte is required by the TCE to remove and restore the haul road and stockpile
area.
Jurisdictional Determination
A previous Jurisdictional Determination (JD) was issued for parcels included within the proposed haul road for
the Reedy Creek Feasibility Study (Action ID: 2011- 1410). Wildlands completed an additional review of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. between March and April 2014 which confirmed two jurisdictional stream
channels (Reedy Creek and Hood Creek) are present in or immediately adjacent to the proposed haul road
corridor. These channels were verified by the previous JD. Three additional wetlands (AA, BB, and CC) were also
delineated within the project corridor. The previously verified channels and newly delineated wetlands are
displayed on Figure 3. A project- specific Jurisdictional Request has been submitted to the U.S Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) with this PCN submittal. The previous jurisdictional determination as well 2014 Wetland
Determination Data Forms for Wetlands AA -CC and an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (Rapanos
form) are included with this submittal.
Soils
The soil types within the proposed project area are mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) as Cecil sandy clay loam (Ce132), Monacan soils (MO), Pacolet sandy loam (PaE), and Vance sandy loam
(VaB). Cecil sand clay loam soils is a well- drained unit found on low ridges and other convex landscape positions.
The unit doesn't experience flooding or ponding. Monacan soils are somewhat poorly drained floodplain soils
that experience frequent flooding but no ponding. The Pacolet sandy loam and Vance sandy loam units are well -
drained soils found on upland landscape positions such as hillsides and ridges. These units typically don't
experience flooding or ponding. On -site soils are mapped in Figure 4.
Proposed Impacts
A majority of the proposed haul road and stockpile area would utilize maintained or disturbed areas to minimize
potential tree loss. The proposed 16' wide haul road alignment and stockpile area was selected to avoid and
minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters (see Table 1 for impact summary). The haul road was initially designed
to run west from Plaza Road Extension along the southern side of Reedy Creek which would have involved
impacts to potential Wetlands GG and HH (depicted as Non - project Wetlands in Figure 3) and would have
required crossing Reedy Creek. The alignment was re- designed to run along the north side of Reedy Creek
immediately west of Plaza Road Extension thus avoiding those potential impacts. The haul road alignment was
also shifted to minimize impacts to Wetlands BB and CC however impacts of 0.05 and 0.04 acres, respectively
might be necessary. The proposed impacts to Wetlands BB and CC are within a maintained sewer right -of -way
the haul road will utilize. The possibility of using logging mats in areas of existing wetlands and at the Hood
Creek crossing will be discussed with the contractor prior to construction and could potentially further minimize
impacts. Silt fencing would be installed between the haul road and wetlands immediately adjacent to the haul
road to prevent impacts beyond those proposed with this submittal. A 36 -inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) is
proposed to cross Hood Creek in order to get to the stockpile area. This culvert is designed to accommodate the
2 -year peak discharge per North Carolina Sediment Control Commission Standard 6.70. The pipe would
temporarily impact 25 linear feet of Hood Creek. The crossing would be at a perpendicular angle to reduce

impacts. The contractor will also have the option to use a temporary bridge crossing which would have to
conform to the erosion and sediment control standards. Once stockpiling is complete the temporary crossing
would be removed.

Table 1: PCN Impact Summary Table
Jurisdictional
Plan
Temporary
Permanent
Feature
Impact Type
NWP
Sheet(s)
Impacts
Impacts
Notes /Comments
Culvert would be removed
Hood Creek
Temporary
in 2016 whether or not
(perennial)
culvert crossing.
33
1.3
25 LF.
separate stream
restoration is approved
and constructed.
Fill for
Haul road would be
Wetland BB)
temporary haul
33
1.2
0.05 AC
removed by 2018 whether
road.
or not the separate
stream restoration project
Fill for
Wetland CC
temporary haul
33
1.2
0.04 AC
is approved and
road.
constructed.
Total 25 LF and
Temporary
Impacts 0.09 acres
Total
Permanent 0 LF, 0 AC
I m pacts
We have included the following supporting data:
• PCN form,
• Vicinity, USGS, Site, and Soils Maps,
• photolog,
• Letter from Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
• USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, and
USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms,
• Request for Jurisdictional Determination forms (with agent authorization form),
• previously approved Jurisdictional Determination,
• agency correspondence, and
0 11" x 17" copy of the 70% plan set.
This same information has been submitted to the USACE Asheville Office and US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Office. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704 - 332 -7754 or at ieckardt @wildlandseng.com should
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ian Eckardt
Environmental Scientist

0 0o NNW ArF9OG Office Use Only:
y Corps action ID no.
o < DWO project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: Nos. 33 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1g. Is the project located -in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Reedy Creek — Haul Road and Stockpile Area
2b. County:
Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A '
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Mecklenburg County
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
DB: 9424 PN: 874 DB: 20094 PN: 573
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
600 East Fourth Street, 11 th Floor
3e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC, 28202 -2816
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: local government agency
4b. Name:
Jarrod Karl
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
4d. Street address:
600 East Fourth Street, 14th Floor
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202
4f. Telephone no.:
704 - 432 -0966
4g. Fax no.:
704 - 336 -6586
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Ian Eckardt
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5c. Street address:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28203
5e. Telephone no.:
704 - 332 -7754
5f. Fax no.:
704 - 332 -3306
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 13

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
10511104, 10511111
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.258853 Longitude: - 80.702000
1c. Property size:
9.2 acres on 2 parcels.
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Reedy Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Yadkin 03040105
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The proposed project is located in a park and nature preserve in northeast Charlotte. The land use within and adjacent to
the proposed project area is utility rights -of -way, fallow field, woods, and single family residential.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total wetland acreage within the project related parcels is 1.72 acres.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 4,050 linear feet of existing streams on the project related parcels.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose the proposed activity is to construct a haul road and stockpile area that would be used to transport and store
dirt generated from an the Briar Creek/Edwards Branch Stream Restoration Project (SAW- 2014 -02133 & NCDWR# 14-
0670) to Reedy Creek Park and Nature Preserve.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project proposes a haul road and stockpile area on the eastern edge of the Reedy Creek Park and Nature Preserve
which would be used to transport and store dirt generated from the Briar Creek/Edwards Branch Stream Restoration
Project which is going to construction in May 2015. Soil would be hauled and stockpiled throughout most of the Briar
Creek- Chantilly and Briar Creek/ Edwards Branch construction phase, which is expected to begin in May 2015 and
continue for 12 months. The haul road would begin at an existing driveway access point off of Plaza Road Extension and
parallel a portion of Reedy Creek before turning to the northwest to utilize an existing sewer right -of -way along Hood
Creek. The haul road will cross Hood Creek once and terminate in a fallow field that would be used for stockpiling. The
haul road would include a 6" layer of stone underlain by filter fabric. An option of using logging mats will be discussed
with the contractor prior to construction. Trackhoes would be used for road construction. The haul road and stockpile area
could be utilized for construction of the proposed Reedy Creek Stream Restoration project between 2016 and 2018 which
would require additional permits and after which they would be removed. As a condition of the Temporary Construction
Easement (TCE) granted by Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation, the haul road and stockpile area must be removed
and restored to pre - project conditions after construction of the Reedy Creek Stream Restoration project, OR, if the project
for some reason does not go to construction, then the City of Charlotte is required by the TCE to remove and restore the
haul road and stockpile area.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) was issued
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
during the feasibility phase of the Reedy Creek Stream
Restoration Project (Action ID: 2011 -1410) which includes
the project area of the proposed haul road. A haul road
specific JD Request will be submitted with this submittal.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑Preliminary ® Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Chris Tinklenburg with Kimley -Horn &
Associates completed the original delineation. Ian Eckardt
Agency /Consultant Company: Other:
with Wildlands Engineering performed the recent delineation
yet to be verified.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Jurisdictional Determination (Action ID: 2011 -1410) was issued by Amanda Jones with the USACE on 12/3/12 and is
enclosed with this submittal.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
® Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, explain.
The stockpiled dirt is intended to be utilized for construction of the proposed Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project
which is in the conceptual design phase but hasn't received IRT approval to date: If approved the Reedy Creek Stream
Restoration Project would likely be constructed between 2016 and 2018 after which time the haul road and stockpile area
would be removed. The Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project would require a separate permit application.
The haul road and stockpile area would be utilized through May 2016 at which time the temporary crossing would be
removed. The haul road and proposed wetland impacts would remain for the proposed stream project projected to begin
in late 2016. The haul road, temporary crossing, and additional activities would be re- permitted for the Reedy Creek
Stream Restoration Project in 2016, prior to the start of construction. As a condition of the Temporary Construction
Easement (TCE) granted by Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation, the haul road and stockpile area must be removed
and restored to pre - project conditions after construction of the Reedy Creek Stream Restoration project, OR, if the project
for some reason does not go to construction, then the City of Charlotte is required by the TCE to remove and restore the
haul road and stockpile area.
Page 4 of 13

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 - Wetland BB
Temporary fill
Bottomland
El Yes
® Corps
0.05
El ®T
hardwood forest
® No
® DWQ
W2 — Wetland BB
Temporary fill
Bottomland
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.04
E] P ® T
hardwood forest
® No
® DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.09
2h. Comments: Wetland Impact Sites W1 and W2 will be impacted in order to install a haul road. Wetlands BB and CC have
been classified as bottomland hardwood forest using the NCWAM key. These wetlands are partially wooded and partially
within a maintained sewer line. The portions proposed for impact are located within the maintained sewer line covered by
maintained herbaceous vegetation. As a condition of the Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) granted by Mecklenburg
County Park & Recreation, the haul road and stockpile area must be removed and restored to pre - project conditions after
construction of the Reedy Creek Stream Restoration project, OR, if the project for some reason does not go to construction,
then the City of Charlotte is required by the TCE to remove and restore the haul road and stockpile area.
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ®T
Culvert
Hood Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
12 -15
25
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑,PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
25
3i. Comments: The contractor will also have the option to use a temporary bridge crossing which would have to conform to the
erosion and sediment control standards. Once stockpiling is complete the temporary crossing would be removed.
4.' Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
S. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
Page 6 of 13

5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then
complete the chart below.
If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then
you MUST fill out Section D
of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse
El Tar-Pamlico El Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba
❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
im act
required?
131 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ PEI T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
A majority of the proposed haul road and stockpile area would utilize maintained or previous disturbed areas to minimize
potential tree lose. Impacts to streams and wetlands were avoided and minimized as much as possible. Initially the haul
road was designed to run west from Plaza Road Extension along the southern side of Reedy Creek which would have
involved impacts to Wetland GG and HH and would have required an additional culvert crossing of Reedy Creek. The
alignment was re- designed to run along the north side of Reedy Creek immediately west of Plaza Road Extension and
avoid Wetland GG, Wetland HH, and crossing Reedy Creek. The haul road alignment was shifted to minimize impacts to
Wetlands BB and CC. The proposed culvert crossing of Hood Creek would be at a perpendicular angle to reduce
impacts. This crossing would be removed once hauling is complete in 2016.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The possibility of using logging mats in existing wetlands and at the Hood Creek crossing will be discussed with the
contractor. Silt fencing would be_ installed between the haul road and wetlands immediately adjacent to prevent impacts
beyond those proposed with this submittal. Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 13

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The proposed project doesn't include the
installation of impervious surfaces.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWO Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWO Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes' to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The haul road and stockpile area are located within the Reedy Creek Park and Nature Presence where development is
currently restricted. The proposed Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project could potentially be constructed between
2016 and 2018 and would involve placing conservation easements on the proposed stream restoration project which
would further restrict future activities.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWO Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
Yes ❑ No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The USFWS database was utilized to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal species for
Mecklenburg County for the proposed Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project footprint which the haul road and
stockpile area are within. The USFWS was contracted on 7/28/14 and responded on 8/21/14 that the larger stream
project would not likely adversely affect federally listed endangered or threatened species (see enclosed letters). A copy
of this permitting package has been forwarded to the USFWS Asheville Office to request additional information on the
haul road and stockpile area effects on federally protected species and habitat.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
--F6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Wildlands utilized the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Essential Fish Habitat Mapper website
to review the potential for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). In North Carolina, EFH is limited to coastal counties which this
project is not located and includes salt marshes, oyster reefs, and seagrass.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
® Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Wildlands reviewed the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)'s online HPOWEB Map Service for the larger
proposed Reedy Creek Stream Restoration project area which this proposed haul road and stockpile area are located
within. Two locations adjacent to the larger project area are registered with SHPO and include: the Robinson Rock
House Ruin (Site MK1890) and the Eugene Wilson Hodges Farm (Site MK1265). To comply with Section 106 of the
National History Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), Wildlands hired New South Associates to complete a Phase 1
archaeological survey of the project area. The study consisted of archaeological and historical background research,
archaeological field survey, and assessment of archaeological sites for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). New South identified one site as a result of the investigation. Site 31 MK1118 is a historic bridge
remnant constructed of concrete supports and steel girders on the eastern side of the project area. New South did not
recommend the site as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and stated that no further work is
needed on the site. SHPO was contacted on 8/7/14 for review and comment. SHPO responded on 9/22/14 that they
agreed with New South's assessment of Site 31 MK1118. SHPO also requested that if project boundaries extend near
the adjacent Eugene Wilson Hodges Farm to the north, SHPO be notified to initiate further consultation. The haul road
and stockpile area stay within the larger footprint of the proposed Reedy Creek Stream Restoration. Correspondence
with SHPO is included with this submittal.
Page 12 of 13

8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: A Floodplain Development Permit will be obtained from
Mecklenburg County, a Cooperating Technical Partner with FEMA with authority to approve floodplain impacts. The
proposed 36" culvert crossing was sized to accommodate the 2 -year peak discharge per North Carolina Sediment Control
Commission Standard 6.70.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Mecklenburg County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Panel 4595. Map Number 3710459500J, effective date 3/2/2009
Ian Eckardt
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 13 of 13

Figure 4: Soils Map
W I L D L A N D S Reedy Creek - Haul Road and Stockpile Area
ENGINEERING
0 1,000 Feet
I I I 1 1 1
Charlotte, NC

s
c�
Y
LL
2011 Aerial Photoaraahv
DP6
Wetland FF pP4\
u`�
Wetland TT a
R��y c'eek DP
(Wetland CC
-DP5
,Wetland BB
Wetland HHl
% N�
Wetland GG/
_ a
s
O,p
q
�A f
Wetland AA �g
Fy �
f01
c
s
F�
e�

Project Parcels
Temporary Construction Easement (9.2 Acres) }
Proposed Haul Road I
~ Proposed Stockpile Area
No li
r
• ••
:\ ! \ •i /
� c !
• •
Ik
N
is
Harrisbur W7,5 minufe to o ra hic quadranqle +
W WILDLANDS
W ENGINEERING
0 1,000 Feet
I I I I I I
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
Reedy Creek - Haul Road & Stockpile Area
t
Charlotte, NC

41 �? o PN ,,.,'4f
6 c'�PO Jalern°l \ +d' �aOaA d
p
� H ,-
'A t Pb 7,old� ,s
P °ley
w" n
PO T
o pl °tt�e V 'r 0) 6
lb. rd` pa°
e n
0J o \ �1 i OC 9
V
Q•o
[•a Ift""
a
�'
t
`
n
°
�
G
z
b
s
�
r7
O larte0°
ram
r
N
4 O
'l'ay0
°f Cr
eD
Pd
L ry 'UPCa'�
cX
dQ
o
a
qu<N i pbW^•i sauei
'n
/SPIgawN
a• .Y
` Q
��
`bjl
N P
a y
r
�roF� (>
6
T
d
-a
•ro
it
$
o
y�
E
N
°o
bb �
•g h
t
µo
O
u
c\
It
O
CL
O
a.
?t� lr AV
� A+3Q
any aq
,O'Poll
ad aVnO
$ ber
ea
i7
s3
o
J
a
Cf
i
G
41 �? o PN ,,.,'4f
6 c'�PO Jalern°l \ +d' �aOaA d
p
� H ,-
'A t Pb 7,old� ,s
P °ley
w" n
PO T
o pl °tt�e V 'r 0) 6
lb. rd` pa°
e n
0J o \ �1 i OC 9
V
Q•o
[•a Ift""
a
�'
t
`
n
°
O
z
b
s
�
r7
O larte0°
r
N
4 O
'l'ay0
°f Cr
eD
Pd
L ry 'UPCa'�
O �
°a
a
qu<N i pbW^•i sauei
/SPIgawN
a• .Y
` Q
��
`bjl
Ip
N P
a y
r
�roF� (>
6
T
°IO\3
Ip Poo Vol
b°
O pa P •
bb �
Is Pro
b . _
Y
c
F
III pb /,P
0
C J
4 q
a. pa
�
4
�
r7
O larte0°
r
N
4 O
'l'ay0
°f Cr
eD
Pd
L ry 'UPCa'�
L P� /C
,.
Ip
N P
a y
won*
T
°IO\3
Ip Poo Vol
O pa P •
bb �
n. ra V
� v 2
a
C CL
� v U
z
Q) oib `0
_ a
/6
LL
ro
(6
Y
Q)
p/
u
41
N
Q'
M
H
?
O
A?
z�
w
W
(z
v
Z
H W
t�

Site Photographs

IMF
Photo 1-View of proposed access driveway off Plaza Road
Photo 2-Reedy Creek adjacent to proposed project area.
1V III
•
.
....:ate+..._.. '
Photo ••• Creek below proposed •.• crossing.
}1
• •
M� 1
'wl J � +I��C . f a ,'
•ice
y
/ +. �••y�
Photo 5- Non-jurisdictional area with hydrology but no hydric
Photo 6-Wetland BB along sewer line.
soils Data Point
Reedy Creek - Proposed Haul Road and Stockpile Area Page 1

Reedy Creek - Proposed Haul Road and Stockpile Area Page 2
.r
a f.• �
Photo 7- Vicinity of Data Point 4.
Photo 8- Looking southward along Wetland CC.
q1I l
b
Photo 9- Looking northward into fallow area proposed for
-
Photo 10- Hood Creek in the vicinity of proposed haul road
stockpiling dirt.
crossing.
Reedy Creek - Proposed Haul Road and Stockpile Area Page 2

Charlotte - Mecklenburg
STORM
WATER
Services
April 24, 2015
Ms. Crystal Amschler
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006C
Subject: Reedy Creek: Haul road PCN application
To whom it may concern,
600 E. Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Fax [phone]
City of Charlotte Storm Water Services understands that any costs or resources associated
with design, preparation and construction of the haul road and stockpiling of soil on the
Reedy Creek project site are at the City's risk and that the approval of the haul road and
stockpile area permit does not indicate the Interagency Review Team (IRT), US Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), or NC Division of Water Resources' (NCDWR) intent to
approve or deny a future Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project permit application or
mitigation plan.
Sincerely,
/� 4 Av.-�
Daryl Hammock, PE
Assistant Manager
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
cc: William Harris, Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Marc Recktenwald, Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Emily Reinicker, Wildlands Engineering
•
To report pollution or drainage problems, call- 311
http. / /stormwater charmeck.org

Stream & Wetland Forms

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
Hood Creek (Perennial RPW)
.:4Li '
T
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET i` -
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands En in'g eerine, Inc 2. Evaluator's Name: Ian Eckardt
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/1/14 4. Time of Evaluation: 4:00 PM
5. Name of Stream: Hood Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin 03040105
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 0.25 Square Miles 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): The project area off of Plaza Road Extension
approximately 2 2 miles east of the intersection of The Plaza and Plaza Road Extension in Charlotte, NC.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.258853° W 80.702000°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Temporary crossing_
14. Recent Weather Conditions: No rainfall in previous 48 hours.
15. Site conditions at time of visit: partly sunnv, 65°
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 0 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: 20 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
65 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged 15 % Other (Utility ROW's)
21. Bankfull Width: 10 -15' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4 -6'
23. Channel slope down center'of stream: X Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: 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): 52 Comments: Buffer has been Previously cleared at proposed crossing
location and is now Drimarilv fallow field.
Evaluator's Signature Orti Date 4/1/15
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ll
R
i , -
0
,dP
0WWWE'-�lOO
110&4MW
W
(coastal
�
r—ain
Presence of flow persistent pools in stream
1
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max poi ts)
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
2
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points )
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
3
Riparian zone
�3,
V-1
—
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide'buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
Groundwater discharge
5
no discharge = 0• sprinks, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
5�
-,guD
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
jY
Entrenchment / floodplain access
, 1
7
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points )
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands 0• large adjacent wetlands max
0-6
0-4
0-2
2
A,
points)
M
9
Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
101.
Sediment input
4U
(extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max o ints )
0-4
0-5
2
ly
12
Evidence
Evidence of channel incision or widening
-:,7
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
0-4
0-5
2
g
13
Presence of major bank failures
4'
(severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
,44
Root depth and density on banks
14
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
,46
15
(substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed max points)
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
17
Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
�
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA* �y, N
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max)
0-4
0-4
1
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
Presence of amphibians
21
no evidence 0• common, numerous types max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
k,�
(no evidence 0; common, numerous types max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence 0• abundant evidence max points)
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
WA4 gbJ�
Wft Wdssile
bd
as
;,
715V
-7 -T
5
V SCORE` enter on fi
* these characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project City /County Mecklenburg
Applicant/Owner: City of Charlotte State: NC
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt & Alea Tuttle Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.257675 Long: W 80.701550
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam (MO) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 3/31/14
_ Sampling Point: wenandAA - DPI
Slope ( %): 0
Datum:
M9
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes V/ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in a shallow depression and corresponding ditch within a forested area just
upstream of Plaza Road Extension.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aDoly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (61)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
! Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 1 No
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches) -
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 (at surface)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
C
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) —Use scientific names of plants. I sampling Point: Wetland AA - DPI
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
30
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Acer rubrum
50
Yes OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
25
Yes FAC
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
25
Yes FACW
Total Number of Dominant
8
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
g
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
100
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
Acer rubrum
25
Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2
Lindera benzoin
25
Yes FAC
FACU species x4=
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4•
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8.
— 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9.
— 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
10.
— 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
50
— 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5,
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1
Smilax rotundifolia
15
Yes FAC
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2
Peltandra virginica
5
Yes OBL
3
Lonicera japonica
5
Yes FAC
Indicators of hydric soli and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7•
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall.
10.
11.
Herb –All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
25
= Total Cover
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1
2.
3
4.
5
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
Wetland AA - DP1
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe' Loc Texture Remarks
0 -2 10YR 5/2 100 clay loam
2 -8 10YR 5/2 80 10YR 4/6 20 C PL clay loam
8 -12 10YR 5/2 75 5YR 4/6 25 C PL clay loam
'Tvne: C= Concentration. D= Depletion. RM= Reduced Matrix. MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lininq, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Hlstosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
! Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Below Dark Surface (At 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_Depleted
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project City /County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 3/31/14
Applicant/Owner: City of Charlotte State: NC Sampling Point: Upland - DP2
investigator(s): Ian Eckardt & Alea Tuttle
Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flOOdpl8ln Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.257919 Long: W 80.702118 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam (MO) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in the right flooplain within a forested area just upstream of Plaza Road
Extension.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aooly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (89)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland - DP2
1. �u
2 Lonicera japonica 5 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11.
12.
15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer negundo
50
Yes OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2 Liquidambar styracrflua
25
Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
25
Yes FACW
7
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. 71 (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multioly by:
8
100
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x2=
1 Acer negundo
5
Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2 Prunus serotina
2
Yes FACU
FACU species x 4 =
3,
UPL species x 5 =
4,
Column Totals. (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
7
= Total Cover
—
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
All m ­.A.­
10
Yes FACU
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. �u
2 Lonicera japonica 5 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11.
12.
15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Upland - DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loci Texture Remarks
0 -3 10YR 4/3 100 loam
3 -12 10YR 5/4 90 5YR 4/6 10 C PL loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Linino. M =Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvve
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No!"
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project City /County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 3/31/14
ApplicanUOwner: City of Charlotte State- NC Sampling Point: Weiland BB- DP3
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt & Alea Tuttle Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat. N 35.259301 Long: W 80.702182 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name, Monacan loam (MO) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation `� Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 1( No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in a maintained sewer easement where the vegetation is routinely mowed.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reaured: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (13116)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
— Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches). -
✓
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 (at surface)
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
r
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Wetland BB - DP3
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum
10
Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. 3 (A)
2 Linodendron tulipifera
10
Yes FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3.
-
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
20
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x2=
1.
FAC species x3=
2.
FACU species x4=
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
8.
— 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9.
— 2 - Dominance Test Is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Cyperus strigosus
60
Yes FACW
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Juncus effusus
30
Yes FACW
3 Festuca sp.
10
No FAC
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9'
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
11
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
100
= Total Cover
woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size. 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
Wetland BB - DP3
Sampling Point-
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe, Loci Texture Remarks
0 -2 2.5Y 4/2 100 silt loam
2 -8 10YR 4/2 75 7.5YR 4/6 20 C PL clay loam
8 -12 10YR 4/2 65 10YR 4/6 35 C PL clay loam
'T e: C= Concentration, D =De letion RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
! Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site. Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project City /County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 3/31/14
Applicant/Owner City of Charlotte State: NC Sampling Point: Upland - DP4
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt & Alea Tuttle Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( ° /a): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 LaY N 35.259022 Long: W 80.702047 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name- Monacan loam (MO) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
-Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No V
Remarks:
Sampling point located in a maintained sewer easement adjacent to Hood Creek
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (13 16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (83)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland - DP4
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata, 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x3=
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
� 2 - Dominance Testis >50%
9'
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Festuca sp.
60 Yes FAC
—
2 Cyperus strigosus
20 Yes FACW
Juncus effusus
10 No FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.. Andropogon virginicus
5 No FACU
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5 Allwm sp.
5 No Unknown
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub –Woody plants, excluding canes, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb –All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall
12.
100
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
30'
=Total Cover
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
2.
3.
4
Hydrophytic
5•
Vegetation Vf
6
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point- Upland - DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type, Locr Texture Remarks
0 -2
7.5YR 4/6
100
loam
2 -10
7.5YR 4/6
100
sandy loam
10 -12
2.5Y 5/3
90
7.5YR 4/6 10 C PL loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (178)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project City /County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 3/31/14
Applicant/Owner: City of Charlotte State. NC Sampling Point: Weiland cc -DP5
Investigator(s) Ian Eckardt & Alea Tuttle Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %)- 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA). MLRA 136 Lat. N 35.261207 Long: W 80.702044 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam (MO) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation `� Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in a maintained sewer easement where the vegetation is routinely
maintained.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:'
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)
— Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_Water
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches). -
✓
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 (at surface)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) —Use scientific names of plants. sampling Point: Wetland CC - DP5
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers . Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Soecles? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1-
FAC species x 3 =
2•
FACU species x4=
3•
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8.
— 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9.
— 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
10.
— 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
=Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Juncus effusus
70 Yes FACW
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Cyperus strigosus
20 Yes FACW
3 Festuca sp.
10 No FAC
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
g
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7 6 cm) or
more,in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
9'
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
11
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
•
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
100 = Total Cover
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers . Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
Wetland CC - DP5
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tyne, Loc Texture Remarks
0 -1 10YR 2/1 100 silt organics
1 -4 10YR 3/2 85 7.5YR 4/6 15 C PL clay loam
4 -12 10YR 3/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C PL clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (All 2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stnpped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
'Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrx.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
V Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 1( No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project City /County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 3/31/14
Applicant/Owner: City of Charlotte State: NC Sampling Point: Upland - DP6
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt & Alea Tuttle Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.26178 Long: W 80.702045 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam (MO) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in a maintained sewer easement adjacent to Hood Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reaured• check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland - DP6
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10.
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum_ (Plot size: 5' )
60 Y FAC
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Festuca sp. es
2 Juncus effusus 40 Yes FACW
3. -
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3
4
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Upland - DP6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
_ Histosol (A1)
Redox Features
_ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Tyne,
Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -3
10YR 4/3
95
7.5YR 4/6 5 C
PL
loam
3 -6
2.5Y 5/3
90
10YR 5/8 10 C
PL
loam
6 -12
2.5Y 5/3
85
10YR 5/8 15 C
6
PL
loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix _MS= Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL =Pore Linino. M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Reedy Creek - Haul Road and Stockpile Area
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.258853° N, Long. - 80.702000° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Reedy Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Yadkin River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Yadkin River 03040105
® Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is /are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Arr e 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):
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: 4421inear feet: 10- 15width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 1.08 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987•Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable):'
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section II I below.
For purposes of this form, an RP W is defined as a tnbutary 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.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Raponos 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 I11.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.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 0.8 squar mi s
Drainage area: 0.25 lsquare miles
Average annual rainfall: 43.51 inches
Average annual snowfall: 5.2 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 30 (or mo river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 30 (or more) aerial (straight) miles from TNW
Project waters are 1 (or Iess) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No.
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.

present.
Identify flow route to TNW5: Unnamed tributary (Hood Creek for project purposes) flows into Reedy Creek which drains
into Rocky River that flows into the Pee Dee River (the TNW). The Pee Dee continues through South Carolina before
entering the Atlantic Ocean.
Tributary stream order, if known: Second.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apples
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man - altered). Explain: Hood Creek as been dredged in the past. Spoil berms are
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 10 -15 feet
Average depth: 4 -5 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ® Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type /% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Banks are generally vertical with areas of
erosion common.
Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes. Explain: Bedform features are present by no well developed due to heavy
amounts of sand filling pools.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0 -2
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flo
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:
Describe flow regime: Hood Creek is a perennial stream that flows year round.
Other information on duration and volume: N /A.
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil -
❑ shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
❑ sediment deposition
❑
❑ water staining
❑
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
E] 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
me 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.
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.
6A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: The watershed is primarily forested with residential development present in the headwater areas. Stream water
was clean during site visit.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Piedmont Basic Mesic Forest that was over 100 wide in left
floodplain of Hood Creek. Right floodplain has been impacted by a sewer line.
❑ 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: 1.08 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Bottom land hardwood forest.
Wetland quality. Explain: Wetlands AA is located in a forested floodplains. Wetlands BB and CC are located within
and adjacent to maintained utility corridors .
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No.
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Eem� ph eral flow;. Explain: Wetlands can discharge groundwater to onsite non- TNW's.
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow,
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ;Unkn n. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW:
® Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
® Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Wetlands AA, BB, and CC are located within the floodplain of
RPW's. These wetlands have the ability to provide flood storage and aquatic habitat within these floodplains.
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 30 (or- m river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 30 (or,more)raerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: W to land to navigable wat s.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2 - 5 -y 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: Areas of standing water within Wetlands AA, BB, and CC were generally clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):Wetland AA is within a mature hardwood forest with average
widths greater than 100 feet.
® Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain:Mature red maple, tulip poplar, and sweetgum are the primary canopy species. .
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: .
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 3
Approximately ( 1.08 ) 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]
Wetland AA - N 0.16
Wetland BB - Y 0.34
Wetland CC - N 0.58
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland provides aquatic habitat, flood
storage, and water treatment to RPW's.
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:
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D: Wetlands AA and CC are located in the floodplain of adjacent RPW's and are capable of providing aquatic habitat,
flood storage, and water treatment to adjacent RPW's.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONALTINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS /WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
El, TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
E; Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
®, Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Hood Creek exhibited average bankfull widths of 10 to 15 feet, well - defined bed and bank, and soil -
based evidence of a high water (hydric soils). Strong baseflow typical of perennial streams was observed on multiple site
visits during different times of the year.

❑ 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: 442 linear feet 10- 15width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetland BB has been ditched directly into Hood Creek.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.34acres.
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: 0.74
acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters?
Asa general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
E] 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 - STATES WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) :`
'See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IH.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.

❑ 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:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
udgment (check all that apply):
Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non - jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑
Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Harrisburg, NC 7.5 Quadrangle.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County Soils.
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMANIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable /supporting case law:
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature:

❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

Jurisdictional Determination Request
US Army Corps
of Engineers.
W7mington D6*iot
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
to the appropriate Corps Field Office (or project manager, if known) via mail, electronic mail, or
facsimile. A current list of county assignments by Field Office and project manager can be
found on -line at: http:// www .saw.usace.army.mil/Missions /Re u� `lator.PermitPro rg am.aspx , by
telephoning: 910- 251 -4633, or by contacting any of the field offides listed below:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151, Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
General Number: (828) 271 -7980
Fax Number: (828) 281 -8120
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3334 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake +Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: (919) 5544884
Fax Number: (919) 562 -0421
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: (910) 2514610
Fax Number: (252) 975 -1399
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington. North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910 -251 4633
Fax Number: (910) 2514025
Version: December 2013 Page 1

Jurisdictional_ Determination Request
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E and F.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES• If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part G.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION• Please be aware that all JD
requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to proceed. with the
determination, which may include inspection of the property when necessary. This form must be
signed by the current property owner to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for JD
requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will be
conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS• A Corps approved or preliminary JD may not
be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or
your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you
should also request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: December 2013 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
B.
C.
Street Address:
City, State:
County:
Directions:
2900 Rocky River Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
Mecklenburg
From Exit 45 (of 145) take NC2411tards Blvd. southeast for 4.6 "as. Take a left onto Plaza Road Extension.
Cams.,. an PUr. Read Extension a Pa ky Wwr a 2.e atlea P1 .P...47a o— vrto a an Ca be W. amen a.ar— wR.a.z Cm.x
Parcel Index Number(s)-(PIN):
REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address l
10511104 and 10511111
Ian Eckardt
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
704 - 332 -7754
leckardt @W ldlandseng.com
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
✓❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant2
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address
3:
Mecklenburg County (See GIS figure enclosed)
600 East Fourth Street, 11th Floor
Charlotte, NC
F7 ]Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record data)
1 If available
2 Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
3 If available
Version: December 2013 Page 3
I

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property /properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
(see agent authorization letter attached)
Property Owner (please print)
Property Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
Date
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation. —
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
F1I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or
absence of WoUS5 and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property /project
area and provide an approved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property /project area and provide an approved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT /USACE protocols, skip to Part E
S Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
✓❑ Size of Property or Project Area
9.2 acres
Iy l I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
G. JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(1) Preliminary JD Requests:
El Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional.Determination Form6.
❑ Project Coordinates: Latitude Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11x1.7) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑ Aerial Photography of the project area
❑ USGS Topographic Map
❑ Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed. Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
F] Wetland Data Sheet?
Tributaries:
F] USACE Assessment Forms
Upland Data Sheets F] Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
Landscape Photos, if taken
RField Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
■ All aquatic resources'(for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
■ Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
■ Locations of photo stations
■ Approximate acreage /linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
aProject Coordinates: 35.258853 Latitude - 80.702000 Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11x17) with Project Boundary'Overlay:
✓❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
W1Aerial Photography of the project area
a USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
❑✓ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan,
previous delineation maps)
1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at:
http: / /www:usace.army.mil/ Missions/ CivilWorks/ RegulatoryProgramandPermits /reg supp aspx
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
htto: % /Portal.ncdenr.ore% /document library /get file ?uuid= 76f3c58b -dab8- 4960- ba43- 45b7faf06f4c erouold =38364 and,
http: / /www.saw.usace'army.mil/ Portals /59 /docs /regulatory /publicnotices /2013 /NCSAM Draft User Manual 130318 .pd
8 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland /community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
❑✓ Wetland Data Sheets
Tributaries:
0 USACE Assessment Forms
❑✓ Upland Data Sheets F-1 Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑✓ Landscape Photos, if taken
R' Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that inclbdes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations •of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
Locations of photo stations,
• Approximate acreage /linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
❑� Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Forms) ")
Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
9 Delineation information must include, at- minimum, one wetland, data sheet for each wetland /community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 7

Jurisdictional Determination Request
I. REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard -
copy submittals include at least one original Plat (to scale) that is no larger than 11 "x17'
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11 "x17', may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed. The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted' as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and return them via e-mail to the requestor.
(1) PLATS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
F] Must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
❑ Must be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
❑ Must be legible
F] Must include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property Information
Must include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings /metes
and bounds /GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
❑ Must clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
❑ Must clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
F] When wetlands are depicted:
• Must include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
• Must identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
Version: December 2013 Page 8

Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ When tributaries are depicted:
• Must include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water. Marks
(OH WM) of tributary
• Must identify each tributary using an alphanumeric system
• Must include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using approximate
widths or surveyed OHWM)
• Must include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"
❑ all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project/property boundaries
F] Must include the location of wetland data points and /or tributary assessment
reaches
Must include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently
subject to the requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands ", "non -
jurisdictional waters "). NOTE: An approved JD must be conducted in order to
make an official Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not
jurisdictional.
❑ Must include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc.) that
transport WoUS
Version: December 2013 Page 9

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(2) CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE
RWhen the entire actual Jurisdictional Boundary is depicted:
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary'of the jurisdiction
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, the determination of
Section 404 jurisdiction maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from "
this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional
Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Date:
USACE Action ID No.:
When uplands may be present within a depicted Jurisdictional Boundary
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies all areas of waters of the United States
regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the
appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official.
Title:
Date:
USACE Action ID No.:
Version: December 2013 Page 10

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(3) GPS SURVEYS
For Surveys prepared using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the Survey must include
all of the above, as well as:
F] be at sub -meter accuracy at each survey point.
F] include an accuracy verification:
One or more known points (property corner, monument) shall be located with the
GPS and cross - referenced with the existing traditional property survey (metes and
bounds).
❑ include a brief description of the GPS equipment utilized.
Version: December 2013 Page 11

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
The undersigned applicant identified below hereby authorizes Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to act
as the agent in obtaining a Jurisdictional Determination and necessary permits /certification (401/404)
necessary for work in on -site jurisdictional waters on the identified properties in Mecklenburg County,
NC.
Parcel ID: 10511-104 and 10511111
Street Address: 2900,Rocky River Road, Charlotte, NC, 28215
Responsible Party: Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (Jarrod Karl)
Phone Number: 704- 432 -0966
Signature:
/
Date: �/

0 Project Parcels
Temporary Construction Easement
Proposed Haul Road
0 Proposed Stockpile Area
Existing Streams
MECKLENBURG COUNTY m
o
0
eeyy creek r
Y
Z
LL �
2011 Aerial Photography
. i
r po
+
'S
0IN
9�
'9,a
..
F +
3 L
�zy
c�
�s
�o
�\ac

Previously Issued JD for Project Parcels

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action I.D.: 2011 -1410 County: Mecklenburg U.S.G.S. Quad: Harrisburg
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner /Agent: Charlotte- Mecklenburg Stormwater Services / Attn: Jarrod Karl
Address: 600 East Fourth Street Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone No.: 704 - 432 -0966
Property description:
Size (acres): 23,468 linear feet of stream channels & 3.1 acres of wetlands
Nearest Waterway: Reedy Creek River Basin: Yadkin
Coordinates: 35.269275 / - 80.715953 Hydrologic Unit Code: 03040105
Location Description: The site is located at 2900 Rocky River Road, in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following= Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be waters on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331). ). If you wish, you may
request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may
provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
B. Approved Determination
_ There, are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the waters on your property delineated. Due to the size of your-property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
_ The waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory
Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination
t
may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

Action Id.: 2011 -1410
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Amanda Jones at 828- 271 -7980.
C. Basis For Determination
The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Interim
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region. These
wetlands are adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The
stream channels on the property are unnamed tributaries to and including Reedy Creek which eventually flows into the Yadkin
River. The Yadkin River joins the Uwharrie River to form the Pee -Dee River. The Pee Dee River enters the Atlantic Ocean
through Winyah Bay in South Carolina.
D. Remarks: This jurisdictional determination applies to jurisdictional features associated with the "Reedy Creek
Feasibility Study" area as submitted on June 25, 2011 and May 24, 2012. This determination replaces the previous one
dated August 22, 2011. Related AID 200902008 is an additional jurisdictional determination that also includes portions of
this study area (and which this determination does not replace).
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that approved
jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will find a request for
appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following
address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5,'and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by January 31, 2012.
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence."
Corps Regulatory Official: Amanda Jones
Issue Date: December 3, 2012 Expiration Date: December 3, 2017
CF: Kimley -Horn & Associates, Inc., Attn: Chris Tinklenberg, 2000 South Boulevard, Suite 440, Charlotte, NC
28203
2

.4,- - -A
Agency Correspondence

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
August 7, 2014
Ms. Renee Gledhill - Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street, Room 258
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Subject: Request for Review and Comment
Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gledhill - Earley:
On behalf of our client, Charlotte -- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, Wildlands Engineering
(Wildlands) is hereby contacting the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
regarding the presence of any historic, archaeologic, or cultural resources within the referenced
project areas. The project is located approximately 9.4 miles northeast of uptown Charlotte
within the Reedy Creek Park and a few additional private properties located on the northern
edge of the park. The site is roughly bounded by Plaza Road Extension to the south and south-
east, Rocky River Road to the north, and Hood Road to the east (Figure 1). The attached USGS
Site Location Map illustrates the approximate location of the project area. The figure was
prepared from the Harrisburg, NC, 7.5- Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle.
The Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Site is part of an active Park and Nature Preserve with a
multitude of uses, such as fishing ponds, recreation fields, a nature preserve, hiking trails, and
utilities. The majority of the specific project area is a mature riparian forest near maintained
unpaved hiking trails. The potential project area also includes several private parcels, primarily
in agricultural land use, adjacent to the park. The purpose of this project is to implement a
variety of stream and wetland mitigation approaches, including stream restoration, .
enhancement and preservation and wetland preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation.
Construction of this project will affect jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and require Section
404/401 permitting.
Two locations adjacent to the project area are registered with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO); the Robinson Rock House Ruin (Site MK1890) and the Eugene Wilson Hodges
property (Site MK1265). To comply with Section 106 of the National History Preservation Act of
1966 (as amended), Wildlands hired New South Associates to complete a Phase 1 archaeological
survey of the project area. The study consisted of.archaeological and historical background
research, archaeological field survey, and assessment of archaeological sites for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). New South identified one site as a result of the
investigation. Site 31MK1118 is a historic bridge remnant constructed of concrete supports and
steel girders on the eastern side of the project area. New South did not recommend the site as
Wildlands Engineering, Inc • phone [phone] • fax 704 - 332 -3306 • 1430 S. Mint Street, k 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
eligible for the NRHP and stated that no further work is needed on the site. No potential tribal
resources were encountered during their study. A full copy of this study is included with this
correspondence.
Please provide a written response concerning your determination regarding the presence of any
historic, archaeologic, or cultural resources within the project area. We thank you in advance for
your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that
you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Ian Eckardt
Environmental Scientist
ieckardt @wildlandseng.com
704 - 332 -7754 x108
Attachment:
Figure 1: USGS Site Location Map
New South Phase 1 Archaeological Survey report
Photographs of Site 31MK1118 from New South Phase 1 Archaeological Survey report
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax 704 - 332 -3306 • 1430 S Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

Ipw 14
•s 'paw
ice. ;. ra •. _ a 3a: ,r,
`�� A, IA�r•��f1._a�•� �A m
� z
1' !
a Y ire U
o z
c U o
IT
o �o
MU v
0 c OO,
to L w
a�
0 > U
Ln i
c
rl Y
j }
LL
M
LL
0
0
O 1
M
0
C/)()
Q Z
zw
� Z
,40
Z
j...l� w
H
l�
,..
\
,
r^
'
� �.,•;;� \�
161
R
�1
i
fF
ice. ;. ra •. _ a 3a: ,r,
`�� A, IA�r•��f1._a�•� �A m
� z
1' !
a Y ire U
o z
c U o
IT
o �o
MU v
0 c OO,
to L w
a�
0 > U
Ln i
c
rl Y
j }
LL
M
LL
0
0
O 1
M
0
C/)()
Q Z
zw
� Z
,40
Z
j...l� w
H
l�

Photographs of Site 31MK1118 (bridge remnant) in Phase I Archaeological Survey

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Runona i\I. Hartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Klunz
September 22, 2014
Ian Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering
1430 S Mint Street #104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Reedy Creek Stream Restoration, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 14 -1847
Dear Mr. Eckardt:
Thank you for your letter of August 7, 2014, transmitting the above referenced report.
Office of Arehiees and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We reviewed the Phase I archaeological survey, including information regarding National Register -listed
properties located within or adjacent to the project area and agree with your findings regarding the following
properties:
The Eugene Wilson Hodges Farm (MK1265) lies within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and, although the
Robinson Rock House Ruin (MK1890) is located outside the APE, its proximity to the project site is worth
noting
We understand work will be performed in and around streambeds. However, if the undertaking may affect
contributing structures on the Eugene Wilson Hodges Farm, i.e. two grain silos located at the rear of the
property, significant landscape features, i.e. retaining walls and /or fences, or mature plantings, we request you
contact us to initiate additional consultation.
One archaeological site (31MK1118) was identified during the above noted archaeological investigation and
was recommended as not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Our office agrees with this assessment.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or renee.gledhill-
earle�ii .ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Loatioa 109 Ii2st Jonas Stmt, R.*-O NC 27601 Maiing Addrese 4617 Nlail Bence Center, Rako NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/8(1.7 -6599

lll%�V
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 28, 2014
Bryan Tompkins via email bryan_tompkins @fws.gov
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zilicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Request for Review and Comment
Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Tompkins:
On behalf of our client, Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, we are hereby contacting
the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the presence of any endangered species, migratory
birds, trust resources, or Critical Habitat within the referenced project area. The project is
located approximately 9.4 miles northeast of uptown Charlotte within the Reedy Creek Park and
a few additional private properties located on the northern edge of the park. The site is roughly
bounded by Plaza Road Extension to the south and south -east, Rocky River Road to the north,
and Hood Road to the east (Figure 1). The attached USGS Site Location Map illustrates the
approximate location of the project area. The figure was prepared from the Harrisburg, NC, 7.5-
Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle.
The Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Site is part of an active Park and Nature Preserve with a
multitude of uses, such as fishing ponds, recreation fields, a nature preserve, hiking trails, and
utilities. The majority of the specific project area is a mature riparian forest near maintained
unpaved hiking trails. The potential project area also includes several private parcels, primarily
in agricultural land use, adjacent to the park. The purpose of this project is to implement a
variety of stream and wetland mitigation approaches, including stream restoration,
enhancement and preservation and wetland preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation.
The project is intended to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits for the City of
Charlotte Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank. Construction of this project will affect
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and require Section 404/401 permitting.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database was searched for federally listed threatened
and endangered plant and animal species for Mecklenburg County, NC. Four federally
endangered species are listed, the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorate), Michaux's sumac
(Rhus michauxii), Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigota) are currently listed as threatened or endangered in Mecklenburg County.
The bald eagle (Halioeetus leucocepholus) has been removed from the Federal List of
Threatened and Endangered but is federally protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act (BGPA).
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E RING
In 2011, a feasibility study was completed by Kimley -Horn for the western portion of the project.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office records were reviewed on August 8, 2011,
to determine the presence of threatened and endangered species. Records did not show any of
the federally endangered species within the western portion of the project vicinity. Of the listed
species, potential habitat was encountered for the Carolina heelsplitter, however no individuals
were observed. Project activities were determined 'unlikely to adversely affect' the Carolina
heelsplitter. No habitat or individuals were observed for the other listed species.
The eastern half of the project area will be field- reviewed in the coming months. USFWS will be
notified if suitable habitat for any listed species is found or if we determine that the project may
affect one of more federally listed species or designated critical habitat.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a stream and wetland
restoration project on the subject property.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that you do not have any comments
regarding associated laws and that you do not have any information relevant to this project at
the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
Ian Eckardt
Environmental Scientist
ieckardt @wildlandseng.com
704 - 332 -7754 x108
Attachment:
Figure 1: USGS Site Location Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax 704 - 332 -3306 • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

4
�`, !►Aar N r + t:?t�.� �+ ��)
PROW
6
Ole
WE
VV—
a �
. L. 1 e.ys.''u• i J `i t irate_'} �T� - •
/
IMFRY
F-0 ),
M
a�
m
LL
O
O '1
M
O
1--1 ce
zw
Qll� Z
Qz
aW
4t)
ra
0
2
a
V
�
+?.
O
0
j
0 d
C
�
ro
p
m
v
U
Q)
v
>
u
ri
Y
}
O1
LL
M
a�
m
LL
O
O '1
M
O
1--1 ce
zw
Qll� Z
Qz
aW
4t)

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 21, 2014
Mr. Ian Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, No. 104
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Dear Mr. Eckardt:
Subject: Federally Endangered and Threatened Species Assessment, Reedy Creek Stream
Restoration Project, located Northeast of Charlotte, in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
On July 28, 2014, we received (via e-mail) a letter from you in which you requested our review
and comments on the proposed project. We have reviewed the information presented and we are
providing the following comments in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661- 667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 -1543) (Act).
According to the information provided, the purpose of the project is to implement several stream
and wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities to provide mitigation credits
for the City of Charlotte Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The project will
include stream and wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities along a section
of Reedy Creek that occurs in an active Park and Nature Preserve. The majority of the project
area consists of mature riparian forests with adjacent properties consisting of dense urban
development. No specific restoration plans were included in your letter.
We have no objection to the proposed actions and support any efforts to restore and protect the
water quality in the project area. Based on the information provided and a review of our records,
we do not believe the subject project is likely to adversely affect federally listed endangered or
threatened species or critical habitat. Thus, the requirements of section 7(c) of the Act are
fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect endangered or threatened
species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat is determined that may be affected by the action.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258 -3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4 -2 -14 -314.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

Reedy Creek Stream Restoration
Charlotte, North Carolina
for
° 3
Rocky River Rd
tW
hoc P
tl� Plate
Rd Fxter��oo
® S=
s
Chado NC y
6
a
d
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
CALL 1- 800 - 632 -4949
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER
IT'S THE LAW!
Charlotte - Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services
HAUL ROAD
ISSUED APRIL 3, 2015
Sheet Index
Title Sheet
Reedy Creek Haul Road
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F -0831
1430 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Emily G. Reinicker, PE
704 - 332 -7754
Surveying:
Kee Mapping and Surveying
111 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Brad Kee, PLS
828 - 645 -8275
0.1
1.1 -1.4
Owner:
Charlotte - Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
William Harris, EI
ag -
zZm°Sgw
p L
i. piE �G -•Tf y
SEAL
ozos ,
O
O
++ O
I--i U
� O
�z
U
�U
a8
a
OJ
N

Construction Sequence
1 Contact North Carolina "ONE CALL" Center (1.800.632.4949) before any excavation.
2 Mobilize equipment and materials to the site.
3. Install construction entrance
4. Install silt fence, haul road, and temporary stream crossing per plan as work progresses towards stockpile area.
5. Establish stockpile area and associated erosion control measures.
6. Stockpile up to 60,000 cubic yards of approved suitable material at the designated area.
7. Suitable material shall be naturally occurring soil without debris, trash, foreign objects, and contamination. It shall also be
devoid of topsoil with potential invasive seed source All suitable material shall be approved by the Engineer prior to haul
off from borrow site
8. The contractor shall perform final maintenance and stabilization on the stockpile, haul road, and associated erosion
control features before demobilizing from the off -site disposal site. All off -site disposal features shall be left in place with
the exception of the temporary stream crossing. The CMP pipe and stone in the channel shall be removed and set aside
for future use. The stream channel should be shaped to allow positive drainage at a low slope; matching upstream and
downstream channel sections.
0
Existing Features
-- --
Existing Property Line
100
Existing Major Contour (5' Interval)
Existing Minor Contour
Proposed Thalweg Alignment
Existing Overhead Electric
Proposed Bankfull
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Major Contour (5' Interval)
Existing Easement
Proposed Minor Contour
Existing Fence
Proposed Tree Removal
Existing Fiber Optic Cable
_._.._...._,. _.__..._..._........— .___.._.—
Existing Underground Utility Easement
C
Existing Sanitary Sewer
------ - - - - --
Existing Sanitary Sewer Easement
Existing Trail
m
Existing Wetland
Existing Tree
Q
Existing Groundwater Well
PROJECT NOTES:
Topographic survey was completed by Kee Mapping and Survey and Avio
Image on September 30, 2014. Parcel boundary survey completed by S &MC.
Proposed Features
Erosion Control Features
Proposed Silt Fence
- --
------- - - - - -- Proposed Temporary Construction Easement
Proposed Limits of Disturbance
Proposed Safety Fence
Proposed Construction Entrance
Stockpile Area Proposed Stockpile Area
r+ �
zam`r5g�
Q2'
zM U`M'M7
Tw�
�Zo UFa E
02
fill '111,
s -a1-�
0
4.
O �
� U
C
°
4 o
4z
U)
U o
0Z
U
P4
0
U)
i
z
M
(U
v
U
Proposed Temporary Crossing
Proposed Conservation Easement
Conservation Easement Crossing
30 +00
Proposed Thalweg Alignment
'c
Proposed Bankfull
'rte
Proposed Major Contour (5' Interval)
Proposed Minor Contour
Proposed Tree Removal
Erosion Control Features
Proposed Silt Fence
- --
------- - - - - -- Proposed Temporary Construction Easement
Proposed Limits of Disturbance
Proposed Safety Fence
Proposed Construction Entrance
Stockpile Area Proposed Stockpile Area
r+ �
zam`r5g�
Q2'
zM U`M'M7
Tw�
�Zo UFa E
02
fill '111,
s -a1-�
0
4.
O �
� U
C
°
4 o
4z
U)
U o
0Z
U
P4
0
U)
i
z
M
(U
v
U
Proposed Temporary Crossing
°s
a
'c
O
C
so
E W
m
0
$ q
u
y�

MO 4t 1n _ i s r rr \ I Jam• 'i (/3
t C
E ae \ /M" o �� :F ,/' i rrr • !' " °
SS
w, ` � , - %/r ass rrrr / " A zZ�N�g
� a,
3no rrr\ / �WecJ�Mz
s/ RANDY C. STRICKLAND
E / r ` . \;f ano ParcellD #10.5- 1tt -03
�OO 'z0�'- A wo
9401 PLAZA RD. EXT. -MO 1 z E
O 6 / MO
w
-� rrr -•...
/' /f. i M° for Mo \ ✓' !"� j �:. �• T o Z� , 0
�\ O f f� f f f r
.MH29+3ga -FEMA FLOODWAY
� C O f �"-� s5 -- 355 IM -- 648.43 rr Wo \
c, \ M
'A' , F �,/� / ta' INV IN= 635.00 rr o \\
Mo / �� t F i \ /1 s^ rav ou '- 4 \'
W \ E 1 �s.Y V f / yam• F s4 e / 355 / ' ✓ rir \ �p ` \ \NIIIIII ///
��O ♦\\\ 1 .� . r�s3s•� �5 ./� rt,'1+ f _. • / Y i " o ```p . q�i4i
IS ICE / . icE COMMUNITY FLOODWAY ° = 'L
✓�.! A.w - -TCE I s r` •1• _ ;'L SEAL "
/•�; - / (ice •A / ., .1L't' - TIC TCE \ ~:Z . �Hi
1?`, f 1� ,/� ICE �- i �.
t' s{ci. .• �— —TCE o.. ��•��
\ -• = - .,./ E % ICE
..... r ° 1.11
_....... .
H ?5 +47�3 • ............... . ...• �.• u� ` 1.1�- ':ei ''''S:a;
IN%'84 .: 1GE 3J1 7
8" l INN IN IN: 634.4 ' ' • • 3J1 1x �- f
..
'18" INV IN�834.0 ...••••? 3J1
18_ INV OUT433.74 b\ / INSTALL SILT FENCE
1
\ sN F 3J SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 1.4
16' HAUL ROAD (TYP) s•3J1
......; •.........• F (D
FEMA FLOOD FRINGE LINE
, ;I \ \� � .'"y.r•� ,,: �\ \ ; •.. ..'.? ...... .. . • r rF f. r , F ....,•y :70 ; =� .. /
•, . gyp, (/r
`„ •.�J \\ \ G �.. �\ / ^� .. f REEDV CREEK NATURE PRESEFiVE� •,1.± _ / ^`•. .•,� `••••j
..... ... �. _
�\ / W + ^••'
MECKLENBU RG COUNTY ;'.."
^ '
�.. \ �\ �� C 1 ♦ ."� / n� �•
Parcel ID #105-111-04
4l DB: 20094 PG: 573
� ♦ - \ `•..'r �Q' O
\\ \ �� ^�� �. ^� ^.r/ PLAT by: R.B PHARR& ASSOCIATES, P.A.
DATE: 11/55/2001, FI3LE No:W -2766, JOB No /4",
+r
FPE8648.0 �+
�•I i-I
1 q COMMUNITY FLOOD FRINGE UNE
1 I I•�•I U
L4 // Q) x
s� / $-4 Q)
\ \\ o I x U
J.
s\ rn / a o
r o° / u
>1 .
-1 /
Vicinity Map
INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE /
SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 1.4 RooK 4 ¢t4
4
°a
Stockpile Area
??GG
Plaza Rd Extension Construction
Access
6
NOTE:
The Community Encroachment Une must be clearly marked prior
to grading and the marked line must be maintained on site until 0' 40' 80' 120'
final grading is completed. e
Irps¢orrtul a z' �

/S
V'
a'
9�
G4��N
�pFp�l4
mfg
Sa
=I
al
I
I
I
0
MH 37 +5131
—RIM= 65156
'M2' INV IN=64074
II,�V OUT -.64 6t) 0
\\ k.
° °W
o W
3nO
\ nO
oW Ow
\3nO
ow \ OW °w
° °O OW
\ / \
° \
w °w
O
3� w \\ 3�
\ °w °W \3n
I
k�
I`°
CD
INN
e'1
la
N
1
LLJ
Z
I'u
I!R
I
I
I
I
I
0' 40' 1. 120'
�wwaoeuq
Z OISA
Q uzg
Zcenn
31
aio DEEN/p•, ,
•�! SEAL -
•2 3
s -a +-
0
O
c
W
S-r �
U �-.
>1U
I-4
.a
cuf�
G1
I,
U
Q)
94
a � N
¢ J•
l�
E W m

\ \ \ \ -----------------
—10E /// soo i !
LOD
LOD
i
i
m
•\ `� � � � \ !� i ) 1580
`INSTALL SILT FENCE \--- - - - - -. �� m
\ ` SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 1.4 \
STOCKPILE AREA
I p0'
001 -
�° o
� 33t
�x---
H
�L
I/ NSTALL TEMPORARY 8 /
:F OSSING
I �•"' G�.�C SEE DETAIL 11 SHEET 1.4 .-" BRp,NCN
GSS
NO --
I
16' HAUL RO � \
5,
1 351 355
331 4
SS rr
< /`Q i I E f E E E E E f k E E f
l~ IN' � 1\ �O
40' Iwwzonrul
12�
+ S ,OE EE DETAIL 3, 1.4 S \
MK .00
O
f { f f t
E RIM = 655.67 f f f E E E \ O
H f 12' INV IN =944.M
I E t 12" IN OUT= 644.27 E E E E ) ys ss
/ S
J VENT�63.91 -1
2I RIb�857.84 \
I / 12' INV IN= 647.08 yy,
Q / 12' INV oLtr= 646.93
l f ys
A S„
Zi°°Axa
�^I�z
4-
a-Z,� z9 agng
Aox@��
vd @
6R�44��4
J?. of 88 O,j,.•! g
:4�
SEAL f�.
��'',� ,�� I.IN, 1 /EE y`A0 ' ✓� �
r
O
O 0
U
C)
rr4
V^ z
J
u
I
x
Q)
i4
U
a
@ l�
Z i
G $ 0. O m Ei

COARSE AGGERGATE A' GULAR-RZ.-
Hood Creek Plan View
(1) - 36" CMPs
COARSE AGGREGATE 6"
EARTH FILL COVERED BY
APPROPRIATELY
1.0' LARGE ANGULAR ROCK.
Hood Creek Section View
n Temporary Stream Crossing
1.4 Not to Scale
NOTES:
1. THIS TYPE OF CROSSING CAN BE INSTALLED IN
BOTH A WET OR DRY WEATHER STREAM
CONDITION WHERE THE DRAINAGE AREA EXCEEDS
10 ACRES.
2. REMOVE DURING CLEANUP.
3. CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT TO USE A TEMPORARY
BRIDGE CROSSING, IF HE /SHE DOES, IT MUST
CONFORM TO THE "MANUAL FOR EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL IN [STATE] ".
8' MAX. WITH WIRE
16'MAX. WITHOUT WIRE)
MIDDLE AND VE [RE S
HALL BE 12 GAG E M IN FILTER FAI
. • AND BO I ■��r
SHALL BE 10 GAUGE MIN:-- ■001
WIRE
NOTES:
1. USE WIRE A MINIUM Of 32" IN WIDTH AND WITH
A MINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WITH 12" STAY
SPACING.
2. USE FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 36" IN WIDTH
AND FASTEN ADEQUATELY TO THE WIRES AS
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
3. PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE SELF - FASTENER
ANGLE STEEL TYPE. ANGLE STEELTYPE.
FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTED FILL
.XTEND FABRIC
• -
Temporary Silt Fence
1.4 / Not to Scale
NOTES:
1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMMODATE LARGE TRUCKS.
S. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS
OF INGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED.
PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND
TIMELY MAINTENANCE.'
6. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH
WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD
ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH
STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
7. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY
MUST BE CLEANED IMMEDIATELY.
8. USE CLASS A STONE OR OTHER COARSE AGGREGATE
APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
9. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.
Construction Entrance
1.4 of to Scale
Q$ -
ZziN 42
ZE
a"Ewsa�
^ z,6
"..0 L
\\�JptN CARO4!i'i
`.ro.OFE83Yp•s� _
:4 SEAL
0299 :
3 -31-
O
..r
o
� o
U
(Z 7t4
� o
4�
U
C5
a�
U
a�
6
E 4i m E
0
x
U
a,