20061176 Ver 2_401 Application_20080508

' 550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
i
CWS
May 7, 2008
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (v)
Carolina Wetland Services 704-527-1133 (fax)
Oto - 11'16 V2.
Mr. Steve Chapin
U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: After-the-Fact Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 12 and Water
Quality Certification No. 3699 and Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 18
Tuscany Subdivision Sewer Project
Union County, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2008-2238
The Tuscany Subdivision Sewer project is located in on Billy Howie Rd. in Union County, North
Carolina (USGS Map, enclosed). The purpose of this project is to construct a multi section sanitary
sewer that will connect with an existing sewer main, constructed by Union County, located on the
south side of Little Twelvemile Creek. The proposed sewer will provide the Tuscany subdivision
sanitary sewer service. An additional purpose of the project is to construct a pedestrian stream ford
across Little Twelvemile Creek. The purpose of this ford is to provide connectivity for a pedestrian
walking trail. The proposed stream ford will be constructed under a Nationwide Permit No. 18. The
Mathisen Company has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401
permitting services for this project. Please see the attached, signed Agent Certification of
Authorization Form.
Applicant Name: The Mathisen Company, Mr. Brian Johnson
Mailing Address: 6208 Creft Circle, Suite 230, Indian Trail, North Carolina 28079
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-507-7547
Street Address of Project: Billy Howie Rd., Union County, North Carolina
Waterway: Little Twelvemile Creek and UT's to Little Twelvemile Creek
Basin: Catawba River (HU# 03050105)
City: Mineral Springs MA_Y 1 Z?iQ$
County: Union
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N34.96386°, W80.67637° OEIa{,vinrEt;ctur+ulr
USGS Quadrangle Name: Waxhaw, North Carolina, 1993 wi1l1LNDS PND STORN1WATER ?R,?NCta
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is wooded floodplain with an existing maintained sewer
easement. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of black willow (Salix nigra), box
elder (Acer negundo), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), various grasses (Festuca spp.),
and sedges (Carex spp.). According to the Soil Survey of Union County', on-site soils consist of
Chewacla silt loam (ChA)2, Tatum gravelly silty clay loam (TbB2 and TbC2). Tatum soils are well-
1 United States Department of Agriculture. NRCS Online Soil Survey of Rowan County, North Carolina.
z NRCS Hydric Soils of North Carolina, December 15, 1995.
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • NEW YORK
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
May 5, 2008
Mr. Steve Chapin
Page 2 of 6
drained and exhibit moderate permeability. Chewacla silt loam is somewhat poorly-drained, exhibits
moderate permeability, and is listed on the National Hydric Soils List as having inclusions of hydric
soils for Union County.
Jurisdictional Delineation
On April 7 and April 8, 2008 CWS's Thomas Blackwell and Paul Bright delineated (flagged in the field)
and classified on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
- Routine On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual.3 There is one jurisdictional wetland area located within the project
corridor (Wetland AA). Routine On-Site Data Forms representative of Wetland AA (DP3) and non-
jurisdictional upland areas are enclosed (DPI, DP2, DP4 - DP6). Jurisdictional stream channels were
classified according to recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)4, USACE, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance. NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms, USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets, and USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms for
Streams A and B are enclosed (SCPI - SCP2).
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are two jurisdictional stream channels
(Streams A and B) and one jurisdictional wetland area (Wetland AA) located within the project
corridor (Figure 1, enclosed). Jurisdictional waters include Little Twelvemile Creek and unnamed
tributaries to Little Twelvemile Creek. Little Twelvemile Creek is within the Catawba River basin
(HU# 03050103)5 and is rated "Class C waters" by the NCDWQ. On-Site jurisdictional waters total
approximately 0.085 acre (3,884.8 square feet). Linear footage and acreage of on-site jurisdictional
waters are based on a 20-foot permanent easement with an additional 20-foot corridor on either side
and are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Summarv of On-Site Jurisdictional Waters
Potential
Jurisdiction
Classification Approximate Length
(11) Approximate
Acreage
Stream A Perennial RPW 136 0.04
Stream B Perennial RPW 105 0.005
Stream Subtotal: 241 0.045
Wetland AA Forested 0.04
On-Site Total: 241 0.085
Perennial Streams
Stream A (Little Twelvemile Creek) is located east of Billy Howie Rd. and a total of approximately
136 linear feet of Stream A occurs within the 60-foot project corridor (Figures 2 and 3, enclosed).
Due to the discontinuous nature of the project corridor Stream A crosses the project corridor at two
separate locations. Stream A was evaluated to be a Relatively Permanent Water with perennial flow
(RPW) and exhibited a continuous bed and bank, strong groundwater flow, substrate consisting of silt
to large cobbles, and an average ordinary high water width of 10-15 feet. Biological sampling within
Stream A revealed a strong presence of fish and amphibians, and a moderate presence of benthic
macroinvertebrates. Perennial RPW Stream A scored 62 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 46.5 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream
3 Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
4 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999. Stream Classification Method. Version 2.0.
5 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
May 5, 2008
Mr. Steve Chapin
Page 3 of 6
Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1, enclosed). Photographs of Perennial RPW
Stream A are enclosed as Photographs A and C.
Stream B is located to the south of Little Twelvemile Creek and approximately 105 linear feet of
Stream B occur within the 60-foot project corridor (Figure 5, enclosed). Stream B was evaluated to be
a Perennial RPW and exhibited a strong continuous bed and bank, moderate sinuosity, substrate
consisting of silt to medium gravel cobbles, and an average ordinary high water width of 2-3 feet.
Biological sampling of Stream B resulted in weak presence of crayfish, amphibians, and benthic
macroinvertebrates. Perennial RPW Stream B scored 56 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 36 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP2, enclosed). A photograph of Perennial RPW
Stream B is enclosed as Photograph H.
Wetlands
Wetland AA is located on the south side of Little Twelvemile Creek. Approximately 0.04 acre of
Wetland AA occurs within the project corridor (Figure 4, enclosed). Wetland AA was determined to
be directly abutting an RPW (Photograph D, enclosed). Dominant vegetation within this area includes
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), black willow (Salix nigra), red
maple (Acer rubrum), soft rush (Juncus effusus) and various sedges (Carex spp.). Wetland AA
exhibited inundation to a depth of 5 inches, low-chroma soils (5Y 6/2), many distinct mottles (7.5YR
5/6), drainage patterns, saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, water stained leaves,
and oxidized root zones. A Routine On-Site Determination Form representative of Wetland AA is
enclosed (DP3). Representative photographs of Wetland AA are enclosed as Photograph E - G.
Routine On-Site Determination Forms representative of non jurisdictional upland areas is also
enclosed (DPI, 2, 4 - 6).
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on May 5, 2008 to determine
the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be
affected by the project. As of the date of submittal, no response has been received from SHPO.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on
May 5, 2008 to determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened
species or critical habitat located within the project area. As of the date of submittal, no response has
been received from NCNHP.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project was to construct a multi section sanitary sewer that connects with an
existing sewer main, constructed by Union County, located on the south side of Little Twelvemile
Creek. The sewer provides the Tuscany subdivision sanitary sewer service. An additional purpose of
the project is to construct a pedestrian stream ford across Little Twelvemile Creek. The purpose of
this ford is to provide connectivity for a pedestrian walking trail.
May 5, 2008
Mr. Steve Chapin
Page 4 of 6
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to
downstream waters. Construction activities and impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters meet the
following general conditions of Water Quality Certification No. 3699:
• The construction corridor will not be parallel to and closer than 10 feet to a stream or 50 feet
to waters classified as WS (except WS-I or WS-V), B, SA, ORW, HQW, or SB from normal
high water and wetlands; or 100 feet to private or public water supply sources classified as
WS-I waters, Class I or Class II impounded reservoirs used as a source of drinking water.
• Measures will be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with waters
of the state until concrete has hardened.
• Placement of rip rap will be restricted to the stream bottom and banks directly impacted by the
placement of the utility line. Rip rap will only be used below the normal high water level.
The stream cross section will be restored to its original grade and placement of rip rap will not
result in destabilization of stream bed or banks upstream or downstream of the crossing.
• The construction corridor will be limited to 40 feet in width in wetlands and across stream
channels and will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
• Wetland crossings have been reduced to less than 150 feet in length and will not require anti-
seep collars.
• Any wastewater line that crosses any stream shown on the most recent version of the 1:24,000
USGS topographic map or NRCS (SCS) County Soil Survey as permanent or intermittent shall
be installed either a) with no joints connected within the footprint of a stream channel or within
two (2) feet of the stream banks in the case of plastic or PVC pipes or b) with properly bedded
and supported ductile iron.
Due to construction constraints, the following conditions of Water Quality Certification No. 3699 will
not be met:
• Utility lines shall not cross a stream channel at other than a near-perpendicular direction (i.e.,
stream channel crossings shall not be at an angle of less than 75 degrees or more than 105
degrees to the stream bank).
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Impacts associated with the construction of the 5,000 linear feet of sewer main totaled approximately
57 linear feet of stream channel and 0.025 acre of forested wetland impacts. Unavoidable impacts to
Perennial RPW Stream A totaled approximately 20 linear feet. These impacts are the result of channel
excavation and rip rap placement associated with the sewer main construction at 2 separate crossings
(Figure 7 and 8, enclosed). Impacts to Perennial Stream B totaled approximately 37 linear feet and are
the result excavation activities and rip rap placement (Figure 9, enclosed). Additionally, approximately
0.025 acre of Wetland AA has been impacted as a result of clearing, excavation and grading activities
(Figure 10, enclosed). Permanent maintenance access corridors will be kept at 20 linear feet in width.
The sewer main crossing on Perennial Stream B has been constructed at an angle of 125° due to
construction constraints. The remainder of the sewer line crossings will be constructed at near
perpendicular angles (between 75° and 105°). A typical cross-section of sewer line stream crossings is
included as Figure 11.
Impacts associated with the construction of the proposed stream ford total approximately 15 if (0.005
acre). Discharges of fill material to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. associated with the construction of
May 5, 2008
Mr. Steve Chapin
Page 5 of 6
this ford will not exceed 25 cubic yards. A conceptual plan and cross-sectional view of this stream ford
is shown on Figure 12 (enclosed).
On behalf of The Mathisen Company, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application
with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 27, and pursuant to
Nationwide Permit Nos. 12 and 18, and Water Quality Certification No. 3699 (enclosed).
Table 2. Summary of Proposed Impacts to On-Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional
Feature
Impact Type Purpose of
Impact Approximate
Len th Of) Approximate
Acreage
Stream A Rip Rap Sewer line 20 0.007

Stream A Placement of
Fill Material
Stream ford
15
0.005
Stream B Grading Sewer line 37 0.002
Stream Subtotal: 72 0.014
Wetland AA Clearing Sewer line N/A 0.003
Wetland AA Grading Sewer line N/A 0.022
Wetland Subtotal: N/A 0.025
On-Site Total: 72 0.039
Compensatory Mitigation
Construction of this project has limited the amount of permanent perennial stream impacts to less than
150 linear feet and limited wetland impacts to less than 0.10 acre. Therefore, no mitigation is
currently being proposed.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at 704-527-1177 or through email at [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
omas J' Blackwell Z=egj, C. Antemann, PWS
Project Scientist Principal Scientist
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Waxhaw, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Union County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Wetland Boundary Survey Overview
Figures 2 - 5. Wetland Boundary Map
Figure 6. Impacts Overview
Figures 7 -10. Impacts
Figure 11. Sewer Line Stream Cross Section
Figure 12. Stream Ford Conceptual Design
After-the-Fact Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 12 and Pre-
Construction Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 18
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1 - SCP2)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP1 - SCP2)
May 5, 2008
Mr. Steve Chapin
Page 6 of 6
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI - DP6)
Representative Photographs (A - H)
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Z:\2007\Projects\2007-1962 SRU Annexation\PennittingWWP12report.doc
Tuscany Sewer Permit
Nationwide Permit No. 12 and No. 18 Project No. 2008-2238
linage Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Waxhaw, North Carolina, dated 1993.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
Tuscany Sewer Permit
Nationwide Permit No. 12 and Pero. 18 Proiect No. 2008-2235
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-MRCS
NRCS Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 27, dated 1996.
Approximate Scale F = 2000'
c d �' d � U)
\ > 1
�
Y
8
v
N
�
jU
U
M
c�
O
rr!
A M
N
�
�zz
U
U
In_
o
tecu
N
y
d
L13
w
J
C9 (
m m
c d �' d � U)
\ > 1
�
8
v
�
U
M
a
O
rr!
A M
3z
�zz
U
U
�r4
d

1

li
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
l
Y'
I
I
I
I
I
0
? i

o
X a

J
J
m
ff'' Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
C? CWS Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2005 i
Figure 2. Wetland Boundary Map /
Tuscany Sewer Line
Union County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2238
PRE ,EAW DATE CHECKED DATE
I"
SCP1
ODP2
50 25 0 50 Feet
N
W+ E
S

Stream A
Perennial RPW - 76 If
Legend
® Project Limits
E .9 Tuscany Subdivision
Parcels
Delineated Streams
Roads
- - Adjacent Streams (not delineated)
Contours
DP4 Data Point
--@* Photo Location and Direction
0 SCP1 Stream Classification Point
N
W+ E
S
Legend
Project Limits
Delineated Streams
Roads
tusc-cws.dwg Polyline
Layer
- Adjacent Streams (not delineated)
CONT-MJR
{}? Photo Location and Direction
Carolina Wetland Services
CWS 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
C? ?7 Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2005
Figure 3. Wetland Boundary Map
Tuscany Sewer Line
Union County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2238
PREPPAR-iP.,BY DAfLE r? CHECKED DATE
Stream A
Perennial RPW - 60 If
1 20 10 0 20 Feet
i
j
Stream A
Perennial RPW
Legend
Project Limits
Delineated Wetlands (0.62 acre)
Within Project Limits (0.04 acre)
Outside Project Limits (0.58 acre)
Delineated Streams
Roads
- Adjacent Streams (not delineated)
DP4 Data Point
--@* Photo Location and Direction
Perennial RPW
• DP4:
i
N
W+ E
S
--/' Wetland continues
to northeast
Wetland AA
i Adjacent to Perennail RPW - 0.04 acre
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273 '
REFERENCE: GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2005 t`>. --- -
i/ ^a
Figure 4. Wetland Boundary Map ?>,
Tuscany Sewer Line
Union County, North Carolina _
CWS Project No. 2008-2238
PUPAREI2,BY DATE CHECKED DATE
70 Feet
N
W+ E
S
I
Legend
Project Limits
Delineated Streams
Adjacent Streams (not delineated)
- Contour
• DP4 Data Point
Photo Location and Direction
SCP1 Stream Classification Point
Carolina Wetland Services
' c 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
CWS Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: CIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2005
Figure 5. Wetland Boundary Map
Tuscany Sewer Line
Union County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2238
PREPAYXDU BY DATE 0 CHECKED DATE.

1 50 25 0 50 Feet
N
W + E
S
Stream A
Stream A 15 If Impacted (Stream Ford)
10 If Impacted (Sewer Crossing)
i
I
i
' I
Proposed Pedestrian Path
i ?
1
Legend
Carolina Wetland Services
Project Limits
550 East Westinghouse Blvd. ,
1 - -Sewer Easement
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
1 V-7
Impacted Stream
REFERENCE: GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTNIENT, DATED 2005 1
Delineated Streams
Figure 7. Stream A - Impacts - - Adjacent Streams (not delineated)
Tuscany Sewer Line - - contours
Union County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2238
PREP BY DATE CHECKED DATE 20 10 0 20 Feet
-''? ?e?d ST21Gq
P i 1
Stream A
10 If Impacted

Carolina Wetland Services
CWS 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
[?- Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE- GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2005
Figure 8. Impacts - Stream A
Tuscany Sewer Line
Union County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2238
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED DATE

i
i
i

i

N
W+ E
S
Legend
- Sewer Easement
® Project Limits
impacted stream - 20 If
Delineated Streams
- Adjacent Streams (not delineated)
Contour
20 10 0 20 Feet
U
a?
z
C +r
O U)
U co
co
} O
C
t1Ur1 .nxl X. ?
O

ll
hk?
t. a
y? jj?? II
1 r7? ?? r7` ?I p
1 nl++I 4/ r+0 ,N? ?.(y'u ? ?1 a(y' 41 ? F!1 {7?"'. 1? `'•SJ li f I t l
?. ?..y
}'l,-1..i-l C,., T. it " :::
; ...:::::::::::::::::
rM1?t.aURSL?7rt' jU fL. .::::? ?::::.
Vt
7t7 .l . 17 l ?d • C'7`11F?r7 f ! ..::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. r7 ' 1:
i ........... ............................................
r
....
,t All LILT ,gp?4Lll i I I .......... y ............. .............................
P P a
?rLl ? ? tl I ?, Y
.. AA.
Y
FL,
CU l • CJ -0L ?Y U:
? -•Cryy,?u ,?.c.C
? ? `i> ' 00.1 l---tl
1 ?i i l r q yf C 7 0.f
CO ?d U`y7 `l' L7nL Y7 l
C Q D'a Gd,i G'? cd ri
U)- •[ Rr4"cIaJRx ?r
Y, q
11 J? ty??a 4_ff 'it
i N
N
a
rn

C
E N
E ?

E
E N
L)

' N
° m
Co E -o
LU J (0
L) 0 -o
(0
a)

U)
Q N
O

O
3 .o C:
V U) nd .S
in m Co
Q
I
C a CO
H U ii
? I
J I I
I ? ?
?J
i

O
I
U
?CD
C Q.
cu C C
VJ N
O
V M
oN0 z
v ? N
V 6i
4--J F
°' o 0
3z o
?-
0
O w
CC U o
a
V
a'
Iv_I w
U
r+rrw -?
11
F. H
.ti ? o0 0 ?
C .. M
N
?aUoc
? V a+
rr? a
I?1
Line
SECTION A
Undisturbed
Creek Bank
A

I I
STREAM - PLAN VIEW
Scale: NTS
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
%k%Wf5 Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: Cross Sections Provided By RD Davis Engineering, 2008
Figure 11. Stream Impacts Cross-Section
Tuscany Sewer Line
Union County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2238
PREP?D)BY DATA CHECKED DATE
S/ 2
! ` a
Disturbed
Creek Bank
Underground Sewer Line
SHALLOW STREAM FORD AND GULLY CROSSING
ROCK STRUCTURE
NOT TO SCALE
Grade break a minimum of
_ mm above the high-water
mark on both banks.
Downgrade '• ' -"Backslope
Embed rock dam into each bank - m install
a minimum distance of 300 mm. Stream Bank stepping rocks
k
-- -- - --- ,-? on upstream
edge of tread.
\r 00 0
p . -gtr

j}! 1;' 300 mm typical spacing
° oa'
- - -- ' ?? ?_ High Water Level
Hand-placed Downgrade Construct tread of
rocks, 60k9 m gravel and small
i rock less than
minimum
75 mm in size.
PLAN VIEW
Construct top of dam level.-
?V High Water Level -?-- "i?
' Embed 300 mm
- minimum
PROFILE - ROCK DAM
Install stepping rocks
60 Kg minimum.
Downstream
Embed 1/3 of rock depth.
Hand-Placed 77)
Rock Dam. , o o p ?0
Typical
Streambed
CROSS SECTION
' Carolina Wedand Services
?` 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
I dws Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: Crass Seaions Provided By RD Davis Envies is 1006
Figure 12. Stream Ford Conceptual Design
Tuscany Sewer Line
Union County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2238
PREP p DAf6 CEI, K DAn
" f171 4%,
4/96 912 - 7
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. OLD- 1116 V Z
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
Nationwide Permit Nos. 12 and 18
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
{tip
1. Owner/Applicant Information MAY 5 2008
Name: The Mathisen Company, Mr. Brian Johnson eENR vvAl ER (PAU"i"I ?Iar
rsTenF?wA?p sH
Mailing Address: 6208 Creft Circle, Suite 230 vvEr
Indian Trail, North Carolina 28079
Telephone Number: 704-507-7547 Fax Number:
E-mail Address: biohnson mathisenco I (a)alltel.net
Page 1 of 12
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mr. Gregg C. Antemann
Company Affiliation: Carolina Wetland Services
Mailing Address: 550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Telephone Number: 704-527-1177 Fax Number: 704-527-1133
E-mail Address: gregg(a_),cws-inc.net
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should.
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Tuscany Sewer Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 06033001A
4. Location
County: Union Nearest Town: Mineral Springs
Page 2 of 12
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Tuscany
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Waxhaw, travel east
on NC-75 to Mineral Springs. Turn left onto Potter Rd, travel approximately 1/2 mile and turn
left onto Pleasant Grove Rd. Travel approximately 1 mile and turn right onto Billy Howie
Rd., site is on the right hand site approximately 0.7 miles from the intersection.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 34.9630 ON 80.6768 °W
6. Property size (acres): 319 acre
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Little Twelvemile Creek
River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The current land use for the project area is wooded floodplain
with an existing maintained sewer easement.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
purpose of this project is to construct a multi section sanitary sewer that will connect with an
existing sewer main, constructed by Union County, located on the south side of Little
Twelvemile Creek. The proposed sewer will provide the Tuscany subdivision sanitary sewer
service. The sewer line will entail three stream crossings and one wetland crossing. Impacts
to streams are the result of placement of rip-rap. Impacts to wetlands are -the result of
arradin-g and clearing. An additional purpose of the project is to construct a pedestrian stream
ford across Little Twelvemile Creek. This will involve the discharge of less than 25 cubic
yards or rock into a jurisdictional stream. A track hoe and typical excavation equipment will
be used for this project.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of this project was to construct a
multi section sanitary sewer that will connect with an existing sewer main, constructed by
Union County, located on the south side of Little Twelvemile Creek. The sewer will provide
the Tuscany subdivision sanitary sewer service. An additional purpose of the project is to
Page 3 of 12
construct a pedestrian stream ford across Little Twelvemile Creek The purpose of this ford
is to provide connectivity for a pedestrian walking trail
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. A notice of violation (Incident #: 200600593) was issued by NCDWO
regarding the construction of the Tuscany Subdivision Restoration work was proposed
accepted and carried out on ditched on-site stream channel as mitigation
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are no future prof ect plans for this site
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 4 of 12
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Impacts associated with the
construction of the 5,000 linear feet of sewer main totaled approximately 57 linear feet of
stream channel and 0.025 acre of forested wetland impacts. Unavoidable impacts to Perennial
RPW Stream A totaled approximately 20 linear feet. These impacts are the result of channel
excavation and rip rap placement associated with the sewer main construction at 2 separate
crossings (Figure 7 and 8, enclosed). Impacts to Perennial Stream B totaled approximately 37
linear feet and are the result excavation activities and rip rap placement (Figure 9, enclosed).
Additionally, approximately 0.025 acre of Wetland AA has been impacted as a result of
clearing, excavation and grading activities (Figure 10, enclosed). Permanent maintenance
access corridors will be kept at 20 linear feet in width. The sewer main crossing on Perennial
Stream B has been constructed at an angle of 125° due to construction constraints. The
remainder of the sewer line crossings will be constructed at near perpendicular angles (between
75° and 105°). A typical cross-section of sewer line stream crossings is included as Figure 11.
Impacts associated with the construction of the proposed stream ford total approximately 15 if
(0.005 acre). Discharges of fill material to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. associated with the
construction of this ford will not exceed 25 cubic yards. A conceptual plan and cross-sectional
view of this stream ford is shown on Figure 12 (enclosed).
On behalf of The Mathisen Company, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification
Application with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No.
27, and pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 12 and 18, and Water Quality Certification No.
3699 (enclosed).
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Located within Distance to Area of
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland
100-year Nearest Impact
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh,
Floodplain Stream (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.)
(yes/no) (linear feet)
Wetland AA Clearing Forested Yes Abuttin 0.003
Wetland AA Grading Forested Yes Abutting 0.022
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.025
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Page 5 of 12
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included- To calculate acreaue mnltinly length X width then diuida ku dl ';AA
Average
Area
Stream Impact Stream
Perennial or Impact Length of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Width
Intermittent? (linear feet) Impact
(indicate on map) Before
(acres)
Impact

Little Twelvemile
Stream A Rip-Rap Perennial 12-15' 35 if 0.012
C
Creek
UT to Little
Stream B Grading Perennial 3-5' 371f 0.002
Twelvemile Creek
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 72 if 0.014
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavation. dredging- flooding_ drainage- hulkheadc etn
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)
NZA

6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the i TL recnltinu frnm the nrniPrt-
Stream Impact (acres): 0.014 acre
Temporary Stream Impacts (acres): 0.000 acre
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.039 acre
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 72 linear feet
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ? No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
Page 6 of 12
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact site
layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts were
minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction techniques to be
followed during construction to reduce impacts. Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have
been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Proper sediment and erosion control measures were
used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Construction activities and impacts to on-site
iurisdictional waters meet the following general conditions of Water Quality Certification #3699:
• The construction corridor will not be parallel to and closer than 10 feet to a stream or 50 feet to
waters classified as WS (except WS-I or WS-V), B, SA, ORW, HQW, or SB from normal high
water and wetlands; or 100 feet to private or public water supply sources classified as WS-I
waters, Class I or Class II impounded reservoirs used as a source of drinking water.
• Measures will be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with waters of
the state until concrete has hardened.
• Placement of rip rap will be restricted to the stream bottom and banks directly impacted by the
placement of the utility line. Rip rap will only be used below the normal high water level. The
Page 7of12
stream cross section will be restored to its original grade and placement of rip rap will not result
in destabilization of stream bed or banks upstream or downstream of the crossing.
• The construction corridor will be limited to 40 feet in width in wetlands and across stream
channels and will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
• Wetland crossings have been reduced to less than 150 feet in length and will not require anti-
seep collars.
• Any wastewater line that crosses any stream shown on the most recent version of the 1:24,000
USGS topographic map or NRCS (SCS) County Soil Survey as permanent or intermittent shall be
installed either a) with no joints connected within the footprint of a stream channel or within two
(2) feet of the stream banks in the case of plastic or PVC pipes or b) with properly bedded and
supported ductile iron.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Page 8 of 12
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Construction of this project has limited the amount of permanent perennial stream impacts to less
than 150 linear feet and limited wetland impacts to less than 0.10 acre. Therefore, no mitigation
is currently being proposed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
Page 9 of 12
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
3 Q for Catawba)

Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
Page 10 of 12
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Sources of nearby impervious cover include
roads, driveways, and rooftops. This proiect will not cause an increase in the impervious
coverage of the proiect area.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes M No ?
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: This
project is located within an existing residential area. No future development is scheduled as a
result of the completion of this project.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
Page 11 of 12
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Construction is scheduled to begin immediately following receipt of the appropriate permits.
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Brian Johnson, representing The Mathisen Company, hereby certify that I have
authorized Gregg C. Anteramann of Carolina Wetland Services, inc. to act on my behalf
and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request
for wetlands determination/permitting and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
A C. ^-
Applio 's signature Agent's signature
C7 ^C) f5 4/28/08
Date Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.
Td W06T : T T BOW BE 'add 6ZL8Z8817BL : 'ON Xdd uosuyof •d -El:
WO
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: April 22, 2008
COUNTY Union County, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 7 acre
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Tuscany Sewer Project
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
The Mathisen Company
POC: Mr. Brian Johnson
6208 Creft Circle, Suite 230
Indian Trail. NC 28079
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services. Inc.
POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann, at [phone]
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: Stream Ford )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( X ) Project already completed
(Type of project: Sewer Line )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) USGS 7.5-Minute Waxhaw, NC Topographic Quadrangles
(X) NRCS Union County Soil Survey
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form
(X) Routine On-Site Data Form (DPI- DP6)
(X) Representative Photographs (A - H)
Signature of Pr erty Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Gregg Antemann
Perennial RPW A
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 04/08/2008 Project: Tuscany Sewer Latitude= N34.96380
Evaluator: PAB & TJB Site: SCP1 Longitude: W80.6764°
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Points: Other Perennial RPW A
Stream is at feast intermittent 50 County. Union e.g. QuerJ dame:
;f ? 19 or perennial if ? 30
6.501
-- ------- --- ---------- •--- --- -----
A. Geart3arphola?y__(Subtota€ 23.5---) Absent Teak Moderate Strong

1
'
. Continuous bed and bank
- - - - - ---------------3 =--+ ----- ----- --- ------------ ------ ------------

2 ------------------------

3
' 2. Sinuosity ---------
2.0 --- ------

0 -- - - ---- -••--------------

1 -- -
- -
`-
2 -

3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
--------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
------------ 2.0 0 1
= 2 -
= 3
-

4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
- ---------- ------------
2.0 -----------
0 ------------ --------- -----------------------
-------
1 --------------------------
---------
2 ------------------------
3
5. Activeirelic floodplain
................................. 3.0' 0 1 2 3 '
.........................................................................
5. Depositional bars or benches ..........{-._.._.......
2.0i -......--.
0 ......-....}-..-.--.. ...-....___-_.......--..{....-...
1 -..-...-_...__-..-...--...{....._-...
2 ..._.....-.--.._.-.......
3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
3. Recent alluvial deposits 3.0 •' 0 1 2 3
............ -...............
-

9" Natural levees
- ---- -

1.0'

0
-
- -

3

--------------- . =- -
2

......................
3
10+. Headcuts
-------- --------- ------ ----------- ------------------- ---- 0.0 0 2 3
..1 . 1 ... ... Grade controls

.
............... ..

1.0'

:

0 - - -: -

0.5 - - --

1
---- --------- ------
- -
1.5
...
.............. .................... ................ ....................
..
12_ Natural valley or drainageway .........
-----_.....-.
1.5: .......-..-
0 -........-{----------. -.-....-.-......-.-....{....._..
0.5 ........_.._....-....-..-.{..........
t ._.......................
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented No= 0 Yes= 3
evidence. 3.0 1
" Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion s in manual
B. HYdroio r Subtotal - 12.0 )
----------------------f --------
i 14. Groundwater flovddischarge

3.0

0

1

2 3
15. Water in channel and 5 48 hrs since rain
or '
,
;- Water in channel -- dry ar gro+nrin? season--
3,0 - ©
-- - : 1 2 3
?

6. t.eaflitter
------------------------------------------------------ ...... .---------- .............. -- ---------- --

'5
--------- -

.5
. -

1
--------
- -
-
-------------
0.5 0
-

17. Sediment on plants or debris .....

1.5 --------------
0 -------- .-...--------- ------
0.5 --------- ------------- ----.------------
----- -------
1 1.5
-
1S. Organic debris lines or piles VVrack. lines) 1.5:: 0 0.5 1 1.5
19__ Hy-dric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes= 1.5
C. Biology !Subtotal = 11.00
- - - - - - ------------ - ---------------- - -- ---------------------- -
20". Fibrous roots in channel

- - -------- ----
- 3.0 3

2

'

E
--- - - ------- - - ----

r --
0
--------------- ---
21`. Rooted plants in channel
- ------
3.0'• -- - -
3 - -- - ---
- -
2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 5
. 0 0.5 1 1.5

23. Bivalves _ --
'
-
-
0.0 -------------------------

0 ------- {_____.____________________________j--------------

1 --------------------

2 {__.__..._.__.________.__

3
24. Fish 1 5 0 0.5 € 1.5
25. Amphibians

1.5
' 0
0.5

-
=
1
1.5

26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) -
0.5 -------------------------
0 -------
---------------------------------
------------
0.5 --------------------
1 ---------------------------------
1.5
27_ Filamentous algae_ periphyton 1.0
. 0
.....
. ............. 1

. 2 3

28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaftrigus.

--------
---------------------
0 0' .....
0 ........
.................................................
0.5 ...................

1 .

_....1. -----•--•---?
--
--------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------
20
'. 'Wetland plants in streambed -----
0.00; -
FAC = 0.5:.
FACW = 0.75- 08L = 1.5
SAV = 2.0: Other=
0
'Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Sketch:
Hates: (use back side of this form for additional notes.}
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP 1 - Perennial RPW A - Little Twelvemile Creek
i ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
1. Applicant's Name: The Mathisen Company 2. Evaluator's Name: Thomas Blackwell and Paul Bri
ght
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/8/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 12.00 vm
5. Name of Stream: Little Twelvemile Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 10 square miles 8. Stream Order: 3rd
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 3001f 10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Waxhaw, travel east on NC-75 to Mineral
Springs. Turn left onto Potter Rd travel approximately''/z mile and turn left onto Pleasant Grove Rd Travel approximately 1 mile and
turn right onto Billy Howie Rd., site is on the right hand site approximately 0.7 miles from the intersection
12. Site Coordinates (if known):- N34.96300, W80.6768°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny, rain in past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 70 degrees, sunny
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 (?DIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? GS NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 % Residential 00 % Commercial _% Industrial 40 % Agricultural
40 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged 0 % Other )
21. Bankfull Width: 4-6' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) x Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 62 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ,- 1 1- ' Date 4/8/08
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.
- - ---- SCAM QUAI,IT?,
?. - - . P?rex?ui A$SES M
S
2 1 ? A - al Rpyy A _ Litt ENT woo
hr•esencc k of tlo , ?ISI? -_ le I'welvenlile SET
vv (na t7ow?; ?l2ers'istent CP@Qk
1 r `atnr -
1? Vi anon - 0. strong Foots in srrearrr k a'°
dence to ` boast
_ i ye of (cxtcns Past irum maY
k 1 alter a'a
. pornts'),
anon -_ ?. a/teratioar Q _ `. , r
notcrati -
r
(11c) b,
tierParian _ mae
c<>ntt; gone Dints) 0_
Ekid _n ' , of uons wide 1) (It,, f 4
tent nUtxXeirt - rnax
v?? c lischarU ; or ch` vitr
s (J nocrrl clischara} ©- ti fl,
-i` ("na disc Gtou di?ch,?irt cs ces ? : ?(} 3
ndty<
6 s rite s se ter discharge max omts} CI 0 _ j
?r?senc ` k 11.
(no fIv Ye?t e 5'nbaznts tJ_ 4, ! 3
od lam ddlacent.flood mad
Enfre re s- I tlood lain i 3
T?
entr nc ]all] - 6-4
dee VV ench? hmenr? oodplairn: ma. oin
pres fre urnf #7o ce5s r` '
f no 4
nceo od nl, - Q -- i
Hand, - (adjacent Max
ai 0- ?
f '
r, ?)`Iar rr= arl wetland nom) ? 0
tacentttetf fJ_
(cYtenstle Ch channel s. ids t 4
- m r.
' iQ zeliaationuasity © C1 -2
r (e.ttensi? c de Sec Gment tural`mcand -- 0
t f f t, ditvon fi r nPirtx o?t? t7 S 4 f1 _ ?•
Size the o 3
ersr - edunc,nt-
1`' (frne_ flohiu;?t? of Channel - inaY o 4 `;,
t - d: far berg snbstr - S ;
! d'Vers , ate 2
(d; • < l 'incised Evidence of ch. arare
` I 'q-
(dc ?' Q 4
- ?E acisicirr may vin
k f a tJ'table or Lsl , (I bed
tyldening 2
(Severe ?
s == m
t'rosiFresence of rna?ot ban.° ? 0
orr
ur CI _ `,
14 ?, no ems k fail ay
? ?s << r1?> ?isr?, RoOt
'Ptl 'an stable. ban - es Erg r
I .r IS ie roots Q and density o -max ottG," 4 .
d' 0 n ban t Ct -` Impact bv. moots for ks y t
1
?'" ; ? (snbst d?I'tcr??r or
i?; antial in?. e wet. liyesrocl;,or ae oint4k ?.r Cl',
(no I't esence Of r ©'' no evidence oduc iton
"e ?ittfes 'ri Tet d fle-?ool/r i ' maC, 4 - 4 2
1' ,< J•
"r ov15 _ : is
- d pool cow ?e Q _ j --
?t 2
(little' II-deG"el A res 4
Or nr' nabira f ?labltat corn o ed max '
0 &e Precity oinrs? ? _ t 0
(no s6ad ?` no v cov neat, a;ncd habita 4
ts 19 ingy G"e? -
rron _ age over omrs}
Subs
Fate, us arl f? 2
('ctc
L f l enibedde I - etnberlder}hess V nla't <?ints j: (J. ? S T 0 _,?,.
?Y (no idc Presence ref ?; l0oSas`turA $ 4
r 1 ncc _ s earrr mix
cotnmo? n nrve7tehrate
s Q r
(no el ide I'resehce serous; t' es 4
f ?? nce U; cow©trn arophibian3 rnax oiizrs). U- l t f1- t
2
c ,: fdt ncv Fr esC mcrous t1v
(no es
y? ? - ?; cammc?rrnce Qt'ftslr mar o;rits) ,' d. _4 -? ;}
P. (noe?icj, ??idence,onume?us cx=_4 2
?ncc rJ. f n'r1t/life max omrs "
abr nse l © - 4
not Gvicf?nc (l 3
4 totaldm?;5,r,, ?A c4- rna? tins F
ar C1YSlte f Q 6`
3
'e characteristics
w
are not assessed
-_SO'er1? ?a f
coastal 4
strew
62
2
Perennial RPW B
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 04/08/2008 Prolect: Tuscany Sewer Latitude: N34.96380
Evaluator: PAB & TJB Site: SCP2 Longitude: W80.6764°
--------- _----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total - - - - - - - -
Points: Other Perennial RPW B
Stream is at feast interiniftent County:
if =- 19 or erefmial if >- 30 3 6.00 Union e.g. Quad Name:
- - eat orphola y (Subtotal-=- 15.0 -) - Absent bleak Moderate
-- Strong

-1-- Continuous bed and bank
- --------- --------

- - - -
------
-
-
-

_ 2. Sinuosity
. _ _ _ _ -----.-_.-_-___----------------_--_-----_.
____.________._____.._.
2.0

__________ - - - ... -
0

_ - -; -----
1 --
-------------------------------
2
-------- ------------
3

--3_- In-channel structure: rifle-pool sequence
-----------
2.0'
------------------- ...._________.._..._____;.___._._
0
- ._.....__ _......_r--...------
7 __.. ____ ---.-.__-_____--__----..
2 .-_----_---.---.--___--_.:
3

4- Sail texture or stream substrate sorting
2
0 -------------- ---------------
0 --------------
1
2
.
- 5. Activelrelic floodplain 2.0
{ .. 0
- 1 2 3

. Depositional bars or benches .. ....

0.0'• ..... ....------------------
--------

0 ------- ...................
------------

1

..
----- _. ------ ......._.
2

.........................
3
7. Braided channel 0.0: 0 1 2 3
8. -Recent alluvial- deposits
- 2 0 0 I 2 3
--
9 ` !natural levees -----..-
0.0 ------------------------ -------
0 ----- -..---------- - =.. - ..
1 . _
3
10_ Headcuts
- - - - - - -

11
. ....Grade controls
_.._ .. . ..............
__..._............. .__...__..___..____..___... 0 5;
; 0 0.5 1 1 5
V
._.....__..........._._.{......__
12_ Natural valley or drains evvay 0.5:: .._..._........-_-._...--.{...._----
0 --_..-.--...-._....-._.{..-....._...
0-5 -...._........---__._. _..__.._.
? ..._.._____....__.........
1.5
13_ Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or ARCS map or other documented No = 0 Yes= 3
evidence. 0.0
Mari-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B_ Nydrofog (S>4bto#a1= 11.0 )
----------------
--------- -
14. Groundwater floedischarge 3
0 ` 1
. :. 2 3
115. Water in channel and 7 48 hrs since rain
or
:
' Water in channel -- d or ro+uin season
- - - -°_ - -r?`_ _g----------- - -
-3 -0 0
= 3
-
- -
- 2
- 3
J

16. Leaffitter
-------------------------------------- ------------•-•--------- _---------- _-------- -------------------•--
1 0
:
----•- . - - -
---------
1.5
: ------
--
-----
- -- ---- --------
1 ----------
----
0.5 ... - -
- -
0

17. Sediment on plants or debris
____________________---____-_--__--_----_-_____..--_--__.__-.--__-_-__-- .
------ ...
1 5 : .. ----------...------
..------.
0 ....--- ---•
0.5
1
1
5
___.-__-_--_-__--__..___---.{______--.
18. Organic debris lines or piles
rWrack. lines) L0 --__.--_-_----_
__________{____.____.
0
_.________.._...__..___{._._.___...__
0.5
.__.____..___._.__________._._
i .
________________________.
1-5
19,--Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 ;

---------------- -•-------- No = 0

•---------------------•------------

-•--------------------------------_- -
Yes- 1.5
------ --_ --------------------

-----------------------
C. Biology Subtotal - 10.00
-
?
-
- -------------
20"_ Fibrous roots in channel
- - ---------- ----------- ------------------ ----------- ----------- ------- -------- -------
--
--- ----------------------- --------

3 --------------
- - -

2
=
- - -

i
_
--

0
--------
21`. Rooted plants in channel -
-- -
3.0 - --
3 - - -
- --------
2 ------- --------
1 0
22. Crayfish
:-- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------
Q
5 a
0
0
1
1
------------------- -----------------

23. Bivalves -
-
---------
---------------------+----------
--
---------------------- --------------
--2-- ------------ ---------- .
----
---------------'
0.0 --
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians --- ---------- 1-0 - r0-
----------------------------------- 0.5

1 1.5

26. Macrobenthos (note divers( and abundance
0.0;
0
0.5 ---
1 -----
1 5
27. Filamentous algae-
periphyton 2 0 2 3
-
_
.
28_. Iron oxidizing bacteriayfungus_
' ---------------

-?-5-a---------- ------------------------
0
--- -----
- -----....--•- ....._
0.5
1.5..__..__
'
29
. Wetland plants in strearnbed 0.001 FAC = 0
s:. FACW = 0.7'5: CSL = 1.5 ------ ----------------------------- -
SRv = 2.0: tither = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: ruse back side of this form for additional notes-) Sketch:
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 - Perennial RPW B
i ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: The Mathisen Company 2. Evaluator's Name: Paul Bright and Thomas Blackwell
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/8/08
5. Name of Stream: UT to Little Twelvemile Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 90 acres
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f
4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 pm
6. River Basin: Catawba
8. Stream Order: First
10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Waxhaw, travel east on NC-75 to Mineral
Springs. Turn left onto Potter Rd travel approximately''/z mile and turn left onto Pleasant Grove Rd Travel approximately 1 mile and
turn right onto Billy Howie Rd., site is on the right hand site approximately 0.7 miles from the intersection
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N34.96300, W80.6768°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A _
14. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny, rain in past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 70 degrees, sunny
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? YE NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 1 acre
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? G NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
80 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
21. Bankfull Width: 3-5' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1-4'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 56 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature I /1W I-Suki" Date 4/8/08
This channel evaluation form mtended 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.
_ SQUA-LI
"'y ASSESS
ill ??C SP2 Perenia]ET ?'Q?tKSg
l -
EET
l ?'resence o? WB
r
ow/
flow 0r ya Aersistent
tu?non f)_ PUOIs
vVi strnn rearm o st ' ?` "1
(extcr?siv dence,tf pasta ur m
u st , j vrll ,
e alterttlc?rr Q- voints) 0 i '_ _< "r9 }
alten airteration itu
r fna huttrr_Itrariar?? ar'on -mrt f)k- - ,:
4 0 cotttr tio one Dints j. (I
F?'ideuce us, Mde ?. p 4
m j (extensive disch lnutrrtnt or = inax
c, . the ai ?oiitts 0-6 O;rtci disch discharges - { 2
(nc? di??. C.roun arses = n r3=4
? h;zrz? dale r
i' 6 -ti's rciis aro pints) ?? 0
-? Pr- r - s. see s, wed 3
} 7- (na ofad
ITood lain -- Jacent rc ulnx
_ t
Ehtreirc0,mxten o?oapiafn Doinz?} (? 3 4 3
lain p
fdec 1 "? eri?ncll d eut /' il srv e fTDoodpiain accens m e Dints'} p 4 fl
tre cnt ? 4
u fEond 4
pres,enee
??'E inn w-ecla of
nds . tri ]
m "
1 0:1$r,e ad laeent Vvetta oints) t} , 0 -Y) ,
13CCI1T Wet]
? J
an?? _
(rsrensiVe ?hau
IV) 0-4
? - chinneEiz ntax
-
Acton _ nuosi - Dints } 0
1©' 0 -Y
:O'nara 3
l extensij.e edirr1e rneanoj ti
?' } 1 ,ostt oa= O nt input n - Doitl(s) 0 j 0 l
Size dtv lzttle c}rno se 0
---nc-h?> ersaty cha ? : ?- i
,.1 1?O?venous 0- ?f nnei ma
hed.s nt oznLs? 0 4 l1
h'v ide )arse dawe? uhstrate 3
nce ofc CSL, rnr)?>aJ
?" ly incised - 0> aeisio? or' oinw r 0
?
E3 ' stnhl wvrde ? "
E Prcyrrce e bed &
?.c l ?e e'ng
Gere ar ,, ofrna
jor his
^ `f i4 lion oint' } t)
t r. Root no et-onion b 1"failures; Q - } 1
. 170 V-isib] depth and.cte le bnn? p _ 4
itn dense nszty OR<h mks oihrs? 0 ti 0
pact jb Mots' 0-- 5 2
ttilll>S agriclritur•e DU?Iltjilt
?.. IC;.' im act or westvi n? r? Dints i _ 0 .
-0_ p-3 5
k
Pr es?d prod
escitee of no
no uction 4
( riFf1
4
. Max
n ?Ics rime-Poo en?e-- Dints 0:?
17 or ools- pple Aooi? f 0
0well- Complex"
(little ?r nD 1ahitat Co
deDelo ed s
f is 1 hahi(it - ?«: rxt lex 0_5
rte "1 1 ?t? Max
Y
„sty l
E (no ( iuio v. cent 4ai ie 4
?'t I y Shadin • ieec[az,R average over sfte;the ma. Dints} Q {l._ (}
cnnhn d
Snhstr uou cano 3
(olde 1?. ate el
2o i -? eedded _ n' bed redness m3F pocnts) D
?. (nD presence-? Jvose..5tru 3
?s Cod, nc of ?LUr _
m in V, S
nzar
-1 reserl ueebrat } `• 0 5
4
(n Cadence = (1, con1m0rj' phibians`s ; ictas )oLnrs) (1 0- 4 0 = t'
1
(no ? ?uerous t ' - 0
e.V7dence Presence qt i`e:h, es.= max
`' m'non 0-,.? ,`1
rtto Fvidenee tzu1. Tousf
y ? i'?dc of ea _ m
ncc: 0 dlife ax Din ? 0 - 4 I
r cibundant use €1 _
cvzdenc? . r p.
tdtpaMts P' may etutst `? €?
%
Se eh? Ara°t hcs O`L 0, t,
are not assessed C?taltt$ P A: 2.
S6
2
Perennial RPW A
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIGrm rvKm
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): April 22, 2008
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Tuscany Sewer Project - Perennial RPW A
State:NC County/parish/borough: Union City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.96389° , Long. 80.67637° I:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Twelvemile Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Twelvemile Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba (HU# 03050105)
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: April 22, 2008
Field Determination. Date(s): April 7, 2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There X "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]
Q Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Q 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 Arj "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):
E TNWs, including territorial seas
El Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Q Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 136 linear feet: width (ft) and/or 0.04 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 be tiia
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Q Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section 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:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or-both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite.
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick I:is
Drainage area: Pi4,_Li
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through '° ,- tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pack lisp river miles from TNW.
Project waters are PickLfst river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pickhist aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Ptck `,; aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that annlv):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: i.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: P& EM
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Rk,Lisi
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 126k?L
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: f ck Lis. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick Li. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OH WM6 (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:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.01 acres
Wetland type. Explain: herbaceous.
Wetland quality. Explain: natural wetland, no disturbances.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: ;Pick: Usi. Explain: wetland is adjacent to a perennial stream.
Surface flow is: Pi k: Gi_4
Characteristics: weak surface flow.
Subsurface flow: Pick. A. Explain findings: N/A.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are PCek r river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Picker aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: *-&. isf.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Ack Li 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: Dominant vegetation within this area includes blackberry (Rubus argutus), soft stem rush
(Juncus effusus), and cattail (Typha latifolia). This wetland area exhibited low chroma soils (10YR 3/1), water-stained
leaves, drainage patterns, inundation from 0-1 inches, and saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): herbaceous upland buffer, >I 00 feet wide on each side.
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 100% FAC or wetter.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( 0.01 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: flood storage and pollutant removal.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
Q TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream A (Little Twelvemile Creek) is located east of Billy Howie Rd. and a total of approximately 136
linear feet of Stream A occurs within the 60-foot project corridor (Figures 2 and 3, enclosed). Due to the discontinuous nature
of the project corridor Stream A crosses the project corridor at two separate locations. Stream A was evaluated to be a
Relatively Permanent Water with perennial flow (RPW) and exhibited a continuous bed and bank, strong groundwater flow,
substrate consisting of silt to large cobbles, and an average ordinary high water width of 10-15 feet. Biological sampling
within Stream A revealed a strong presence of fish and amphibians, and a moderate presence of benthic macroinvertebrates.
Perennial Stream A scored 62 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 46.5 out
of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1, enclosed).
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 136 linear feet 12-15 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
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.
'Cl Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III. C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook
`° 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 FollowingRapanos
Q 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.
Q 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).
[f 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 ofjurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (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:
Q U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
Q U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Waxhaw, North Carolina, 1993.
Z USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Union County, Sheet No. 27, dated 1996.
71 National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
?' FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): See attached report.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter.
Q Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
Perennial RPW B
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): April 22, 2008
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Tuscany Sewer Project - Perennial RPW B
State:NC County/parish borough: Union City:
Center, coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.96389' , Long. 80.67637°'i
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Twelvemile Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Twelvemile Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUQ Catawba (HU# 03050105)
E Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Q, 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: April 22, 2008
Field Determination. Date(s): April 7, 2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are uo "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]
Q Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Q 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]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Q Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Q Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 105 linear feet: width (ft) and/or 0.005 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on I987`j?e `t_icuiE t?$uu
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section HI.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 HI.A.1 and Section HI.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HLAA and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section IH.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section HI.BA 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 HLC below.
Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: PickLisf
Drainage area:
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through VWktiffi tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pr4Li§ river miles from TNW.
Project waters are KKR' river miles from RPW.
Project waters are P11 isE aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are PirkL, aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
a Note that the instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that annlv):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: PfiCl:i.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability (e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick Lis
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick Lis
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Lis
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Ea.Wk leis. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: . FgjLisJ. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
Q High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.01 acres
Wetland type. Explain: herbaceous.
Wetland quality. Explain: natural wetland, no disturbances.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: PickLis?i. Explain: wetland is adjacent to a perennial stream.
Surface flow is: PiSk L' isC
Characteristics: weak surface flow.
Subsurface flow: 1 fist. Explain findings: N/A.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are V c1Lisi river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick L aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: PYck Li.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the'; - Ii 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: Dominant vegetation within this area includes blackberry (Rubus argutus), soft stem rush
(Juncus effusus), and cattail (Typha latifolia). This wetland area exhibited low chroma soils (10YR 3/1), water-stained
leaves, drainage patterns, inundation from 0-1 inches, and saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): herbaceous upland buffer, >100 feet wide on each side.
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 100% FAC or wetter.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( 0.01 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: flood storage and pollutant removal.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section 1I1.13:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
Q' TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream B is located to the south of Little Twelvemile Creek and approximately 105 linear feet of Stream
B occur within the 60-foot project corridor (Figure 5, enclosed). Stream B was evaluated to be a RPW with perennial flow
and exhibited a strong continuous bed and bank, moderate sinuosity, substrate consisting of silt to medium gravel cobbles, and
an average ordinary high water width of 2-3 feet. Biological sampling of Stream B resulted in weak presence of crayfish,
amphibians, and benthic macroinvertebrates. Perennial Stream B scored 56 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 36 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form,
indicating perennial status (SCP2, enclosed).
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 105 linear feet 3-5 width (ft).
Q 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).
Q Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):lo
$See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
[j 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.
Q 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):
0 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
[( Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
[ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (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: Waxhaw, North Carolina, 1993.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Union County, Sheet No. 27, dated 1996.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): See attached report.
Q Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter.
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Ej Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
Wetland AA
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): April 22, 2008
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field. Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Tuscany Sewer Project - Wetland AA
State:NC County/parish borough: Union City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.96389° 1, Long. 80.67637°':
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Twelvemile Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Twelvemile Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba (HU# 03050105)
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: April 22, 2008
Field Determination. Date(s): April 7, 2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Aic' rW "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.
Q 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 AreI "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): t
Q TNWs, including territorial seas
Q Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Q Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Z Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Q Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.04 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 097 Deli on;,M_
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section HI.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IH.A.1 and 2
and Section HI.D.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section HI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW.'If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section HI.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HI.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pickt st
Drainage area: ' iek.T isj
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through l j C tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are PiiLisi river miles from TNW.
Project waters are PicAt s' i river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Piel?Xis4 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are P ' - aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick Li §J.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover.
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry- Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: 1KckLisl
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year Wow
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Piek . Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick Ls . Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
E] Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetlan d size: 0.01 acres
Wetland type. Explain: herbaceous.
Wetland quality. Explain: natural wetland, no disturbances.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain: wetland is adjacent to a perennial stream.
Surface flow is: Piclk' is?
Characteristics:. eak surface flow.
Subsurface flow: Pick A. Explain findings: N/A.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick, Li river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick,' aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: k List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 'Rick i 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: Dominant vegetation within this area includes blackberry (Rubus argutus), soft stem rush
(Juncus effusus), and cattail (Typha latifolia). This wetland area exhibited low chroma soils (1 OYR 3/1), water-stained
leaves, drainage patterns, inundation from 0-1 inches, and saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparianbuffer. Characteristics (type, average width): herbaceous upland buffer, >100 feet wide on each side.
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 100% FAC or wetter.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( 0.01 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: flood storage and pollutant removal.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Off site RPW displayed strong bed and bank, moderate sinuosity, presence of fish, and weak substrate
sorting. .
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: 105 linear feet 3-5 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
D 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 has dicreet confined surface hydrological connection with RPW.
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: 0.04 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Q Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):lo
Q' 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.
Q which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Q Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
0 Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
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
judgment (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:
17 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: Waxhaw, North Carolina, 1993.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Union County, Sheet No. 27, dated 1996.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): See attached report.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
[? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Tuscany Sewer Date: 04/07/08
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company County: Union
Investigator(s): Paul Bright and Thomas Blackwell State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DPl
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Acer negundo Stratum Indicator
tree FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC 10
3 Duchesnea indica herb FACU 11
4 Lonicera japonica vine FAC- 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
50%0
Remarks:
50% of the dominant
plant species are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) --VWater-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology are resent.
Data forms for report Page 1 of 4 4/28/2008
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): chmaelasatloam oto 2mrcentsloo-frenaennvnoadedlchA) Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic D strude is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12" B 10YR 4/6 N/A N/A Clay loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of h dric soils are resent.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data oint is representative of a non-Wrisdictional u land area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2f92
Data forms for report Page 2 of 4 4128/2008
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Tuscany Sewer Date: 04/07/08
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company County: Union
Investigator(s): Paul Bright and Thomas Blackwell State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP2
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Acer negundo
2 Liquidambar styraciflua tree FACW
tree FAC+ 9
10
3 Populus deltoides tree FAC+ 11
4 Juncus effusus herb FACW+ 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
100% of the dominant
plant species are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
?- Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 04" (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) -K-Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0" (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrolog_v are resent.
Data forms for report Page 3 of 4 4/28/2008
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Che da silt loam. o to z aeraeat shoes. rreweadr flooded tchA) Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic D strude is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12" B 2.5Y 6/4 7.5YR 4/4 many/distinct Clay loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of h dric soils are resent.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-'urisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Data forms for report Page 4 of 4 4/28/2008
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Tuscany Sewer Date: 04/08/08
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company County: Union
Investigator(s): Paul Bright and Thomas Blackwell State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wedan
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
-

Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Plot ID: DP3
I
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Acernegundo Stratum
tree Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator I
9
2 Liquidambar styraciflua tree FAC+ 10
3 Acer rubrum tree FAC 11
4 Impatiens capensis herb FACW 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
the
HYDROLOGY
or
100%
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs X Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
ield Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
-? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-6" (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0" (in.) -X-Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0" (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
are
Data forms for report Page 5 Of 12 4/22/2008
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): chmada sin loam. oto z aerreat d.om freauently flooded fchAl Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic D strude is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12" B 5Y 6/2 7.5YR 5/6 many/faint Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of h dric soils are resent.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Ye No [is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a 'urisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Data forms for report Page 6 of 12 4/2212008
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Liquidambarstyraciflua Stratum Indicator
tree FAC+ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Acer negundo tree FACW 10
3 Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC 11
4 Salix nigra tree OBL 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
100% of the dominant
plant species are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12" (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are resent.
Data forms for report Page 7 of 12 4/22/2008
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): cbewada silt loam Otuz 1--t slooei fmaoeaey flooded fchA) Drainage Class somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic D strode is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0491 B 2.5Y 5/4 N/A N/A Silt loam
4-12" B 2.5Y 5/3 5YR 4/6 many/distinct Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of h dric soils are resent.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No
(Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-'urisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Data forms for report Page 8 of 12 4/22/2008
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies
1 Salix nigra
2 Acer rubrum
3 Acer negundo Stratum Indicator
tree OBL
tree FAC
tree FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
10
11
4 Juncus effusus herb FACW+ 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
100% of the dominant
plant species are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) -? Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are resent.
Data forms for report Page 9 of 12 4/22/2008
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chmaeiasilt loam oto 2permntsloomfrequently flooded WhA) Drainage Class Somewhat poorly dmin
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic D strude is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6" B 2.5Y 6/3 7.5YR 4/6 many/faint Silt loam
6-121t B 2.5Y 5/4 N/A N/A Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of h dric soils are 12resent.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Cir
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No
(Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No cle:sth s S ampiing Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data oint is representative of a non-'urisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Data forms for report Page 10 of 12 4/2212008
DATA FORM.
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Tuscany Sewer
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company
Investigator(s): Paul Bright and Thomas Blackwell Date: 04/08/08
County: Union
State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site-significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
If needed, explain on reverse.) Yes No
Yes &No
Yes Community ID: upland
Transect ID:
Plot ID: DP6
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC Dominant Plant Species
9 Stratum Indicator
2 Acer negundo tree FACW 10
3 Liquidambarstyraciflua tree FAC+ 11
4 Acer rubrum tree FAC 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
of the dominant
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs X Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X No Recorded Data Available -? Water Marks
Drift Lines
ield Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-4" (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0" (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0" (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
are
Data forms for report Page 11 of 12 4/22/2008
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chmada silt loam o to z oereeat neon, rremepdv flooded WILA) Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic D strude is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-1211 B 5Y 513 7.5YR 4/6 many/distinct Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of h dric soils are resent.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data 13oint is representative of a non-'urisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Data forms for report Page 12 of 12 4/22/2008
Tuscany Sewer Project
Nationwide Permit No. 12 and No. 18 Project No 2008-2238
Photograph A. View of Stream A, facing downstream
Photograph B. View of DP2, facing east
Tuscany Sewer Project
Nationwide Permit No. 12 and No. 18 Project No. 2008-2238
Photograph C. View of Stream A, facing downstream
Photograph D. View of RPW, facing southeast
Tuscany Sewer Project
Nationwide Permit No. 12 and No. 18 Protect No. 2008-2238
Photograph E. View of Wetland AA, facing northwest
Photograph F. View of Wetland AA, facing northeast
Tuscany Sewer Project
Nationwide Permit No. 12 and No. 18 Project No. 2008-2238
Photograph G. View of Wetland AA, facing east
Photograph H. View of Stream B, facing upstream