20080947 Ver 1_401 Application_20080608

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
08
0947
1. Project Name 2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS)
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: CSWS; Mr. Isaac Hinson
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: 2503 Fairstone Avenue, Charlotte, NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City:
8. County: Mecklenburg
AI
9. Lat: N35.29339° Long: W80.79997° (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Derita, dated 1996
11. Waterway: UT to Irwin Creek
12. Watershed: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 3 and 33
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
Q?c?cadr??
JUN I 0 2008
DENR - WAXER QUALJTV
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Charlotte
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Section 404
Begin Date
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
CWS
Carolina Wetland Services
i
June 9, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 3 and 33 and
Water Quality Certification Nos. 3687 and 3688
2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2008-2305
The 2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project is located approximately 1 mile northwest of the
Sugar Creek Road - Interstate 85 interchange in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1, enclosed). The
purpose of this project is to replace a damaged pipe system and improve flow through an existing
stream channel at the outlet of the pipe system. Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) has
contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for
this project.
Applicant Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services, Isaac J. Hinson
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-336-4495
Street Address of Project: 2503 Fairstone Avenue, Charlotte, NC
Waterway: UT to Irwin Creek
Basin: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.29339°, W80.79997°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Derita, NC, 1996
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is residential with maintained lawns and small adjacent
wooded areas. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), grape vine (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). According to the Soil
Survey of Mecklenburg County', on-site soils consist of Helena sandy loam (HeB) and Cecil sandy
clay loam (Ce132). Cecil soils are well-drained, while Helena soils are moderately well-drained.
Helena soils are listed by the NRCS as soils with hydric inclusions for Mecklenburg County2.
Jurisdictional Determination
On May 30, 2008 CWS's Paul Bright investigated 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
1 United States Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina-
2 NRCS Hydric Soils of North Carolina, December 15, 1995.
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • NEW YORK
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
June 9, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 2 of 3
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.3 There are no jurisdictional wetland areas
within the project limits. A Routine On-Site Data Form representative of non jurisdictional upland areas
has been enclosed (DPI). Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were classified according to recent North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)4 and USACE guidance. A NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, USACE Approved Jurisdictional
Determination Form, and Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Documentation Form for Stream A are
enclosed (SCP1).
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there is one jurisdictional stream channel
(Stream A) located within the project area (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A is an unnamed tributary to
Irwin Creek. Irwin Creek is within the Catawba River basin (HU# 03050103)5 and is classified as "Class
C" waters by the NCDWQ.
Stream A flows southwest through the project area for approximately 135 linear feet (Figure 1,
enclosed). Stream A exhibited a moderate bed and bank, weak flow, substrate consisting of silt to
small gravel, and an average ordinary high water width of 1-3 feet. Stream A was classified as a non-
relatively permanent water (Non-RPW) according to USACE/EPA guidance (AJDF, Non-RPW
Stream A). Non-RPW Stream A has a demonstrated Significant Nexus to navigable waters due to the
fact that it has more than a speculative or insubstantial capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNW). Non-RPW Stream A scored 32 out of a possible 100 points
on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 19 out of a possible 71 points on the
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1, enclosed). Photographs of Non-RPW Stream A are
enclosed as Photographs B - F.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June 2, 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 this submittal, a response from SHPO has not yet been
received. The project is located in a residential subdivision; the occurrence of any area of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance is unlikely.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on June 2, 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 this submittal, a response from NCNHP has
not yet been received.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The existing stream and pipe system at 2503 Fairstone Avenue are experiencing drainage issues
resulting in street and property flooding. Flow within the current stream channel is being disturbed
due to litter/debris coming from upstream. To improve flow through the channel, CSWS is proposing
to replace the damaged pipe system and tailditch a portion of the existing stream channel. Impacts to
on-site jurisdictional waters are necessary to improve flow and create positive drainage within the
channel.
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 3.1.
"HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
June 9, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 3 of 3
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
The grading/stabilization will be stopped at the shortest point as dictated by the channel's profile and
stability. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to
downstream waters.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts to Non-RPW Stream A total approximately 135 linear feet and are the result of
grading/stabilization. The existing channel is being filled with litter and debris from upstream, thereby
interrupting flow through the channel. To enhance flow, approximately 50 linear feet of channel will be
tailditched at a 1.5 % slope and 85 linear feet will be tailditched at a 2% slope. To enhance stability, the
channel will be graded to a uniform slope and the banks will be laid back to a 2:1 slope. The channel
slopes and bottom will be matted with C-350 permanent erosion control matting. A proposed profile
drawing has been included (Figure 2, enclosed). During construction, water will be pumped around the
construction area from behind an upstream rock check dam (RCD) to a point downstream of a RCD
located downstream of the construction area. The RCD's will be removed immediately upon
completion of the project, resulting in no permanent impacts to the stream. On behalf of CSWS, CWS
is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application with attachments in accordance with
Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 27 and pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3, (enclosed).
Compensatory Mitigation
Construction of this project has limited the amount of unimportant intermittent stream impacts to less
than 150 linear feet; therefore, no mitigation is currently being proposed for this site.
Please do not hesitate to contact Isaac Hinson at 704-336-4495 or [e-mail] should
you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
Isaac J. Hi son
Wetland Specialist
Paul A. Br t
Staff Scientist II
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Derita, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 2. Profile of Stream Impacts
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCPI)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (SCP1)
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Documentation Form (SCP1)
Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map (Figure 3)
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
Representative Photographs (A - G)
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Cantrell, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
File
2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No. 3 Project No. 2008-2305
flD
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey ?I
IN o k
?008
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Derita Quadrangle, North Carolina, dated 19 DENR _ WA1Sk QUA
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000' rLANDSANDSTORMINA Q g CH
2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No. 3 Project No. 2008-2305

Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS
r
NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 4, dated 1980.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED N
AND CLASSIFIED BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. (CWS)
ON MAY 30, 2008. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN
VERIFIED BY THE USACE. w E
0 S
NOTE: STA 0+93 OF PIPE PROFILE _ ENE 0+00
STA 0+00 DITCH PROFILE =------ --
Proposed JB
.... ,?, 0+24
Remove and replace
69 If of 24" RCP at 123% __``
Install endwall
0+93
Tailditch at 1.5%
?f 1+00
- -- -------- - --
SCP1
_-
5 FTailditch at 2-/.1,
1+43 = 0+50 (Ditch Profile)
DP1 Change from 1.5% slope to 2% slope
--`"
Non-RPW Stream A '
135 linear feet impacted
2+28 = 1+35 (Ditch Profile)
Legend
Project Boundary APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 30'
Jurisdictional Stream Channel Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
Impacted Stream Channel Cws 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Pipes REFERENCE GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY LAND USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, DATED 2007.
6scP1 Stream Classification Point
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdiction Boundary Field Map
•DP1 Data Point 2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
JB JUC1CtI0n BOX CWS Project No. 2008-2305
RPW Relatively Permanent Water i PREPAR BY DATE CHECKED DATE
/Cr ?• ?t Lr G • '7.49

Y;
337
1
ttl
f
_s
v

j

x

c3,

p
i
1_ _ }
? J
'4 t
? f

a

Jr'? m

- ? Y I ! E 3 ?
}}
a:
N
N
L
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: June 9, 2008
COUNTY Mecklenburg County, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT <1 acre
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) 2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Charlotte Storm Water Services
POC: Mr. Isaac J. Hinson, at [phone]
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: maintenance )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
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 Derita, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X) NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Figure 1)
(X) Profile of Stream Impacts (Figure 2)
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1)
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (SCP1)
(X) Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Documentation Form (SCP 1)
(X) Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map (Figure 3)
(X ) Routine On-Site Data Form (DP 1)
(X) Representative Photographs (A - G)
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Isaac J. Hinson
Office Use Only: O 8 O o9 4rsn March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(1t any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing $PAID
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. 3 and 33 and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3687 and 3688
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
D
1. Owner/Applicant Information JUN 1 0 2008 -
Name: City of Charlotte Storm Water Services, Contact: Mr. Isaac J. Hinson DENR - "HATER UAi n Y
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street AND sroRMwATER BRANCH
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: ihinson(a),ci.charlotte.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8
III. Project Information
1. Name of project: 2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 045-125-36
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Interstate 85 take the
Graham Street exit, Exit 40 and turn right onto N. Graham Street. Travel approximately l_3
miles and turn left onto W. Sugar Creek Road. Travel approximately 0.4 mile and turn left
onto Maple Street. Travel approximately <0.1 mile and turn left onto Derita Avenue. Travel
approximately 0.1 mile and Derita Avenue turns into Hewitt Drive. Travel approximately
0.1 mile and turn left onto Mentone Lane. Travel approximately 0.1 mile and turn right onto
Fairstone Avenue. The site is located at 2503 Fairstone Avenue.
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.29339 ON 80.79997 °W
6. Property size (acres): < 1 acre
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Irwin Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The existing land use of the project area is residential with
maintained lawns and small adjacent wooded areas.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
project proposes to replace a damaged pipe system and improve flow through an existing
stream channel at the outlet of the pipe system. A track hoe and typical excavation
equipment will be used for this project.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing stream and pipe system at 2503
Fairstone Avenue are experiencing drainage issues resulting in street and property flooding.
Flow within the current stream channel is being disturbed due to litter/debris coming from
upstream. To improve flow, through the channel, CSWS is proposing to replace the
damaged pipe system and tailditch a portion of the existing stream channel. Impacts to on-
site jurisdictional waters are necessary to improve flow and create positive drainage with the
channel.
Page 2 of 8
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. There is no known prior history for this site.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are no future proiect plans for this site.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Unavoidable impacts to Non-RPW
Stream A total approximately 135 linear feet and are the result of grading/stabilization. The
existing channel is being filled with litter and debris from upstream, thereby interrupting flow
through the channel. To enhance flow, approximately 50 linear feet of channel will be
tailditched at a 1.5 % slope and 85 linear feet will be tailditched at a 2% slope. To enhance
stability, the channel will be graded to a uniform slope and the banks will be laid back to a 2:1
slope. The channel slopes and bottom will be matted with C-350 permanent erosion control
matting. A proposed profile drawing has been included (Figure 2, enclosed). During
construction, water will be pumped around the construction area from behind an upstream rock
check dam (RCD) to a point downstream of a RCD located downstream of the construction
area. The RCD's will be removed immediately upon completion of the project, resulting in
no permanent impacts to the stream. On behalf of CSWS, CWS is submitting a Pre-
Construction Notification Application with attachments in accordance with General
Condition No. 27 and pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3, (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.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) (linear feet)
N/A
Total Wetland Impact (acres) N/A
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Page 3 of 8
4. Individually list all intermitt ent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Average Area
Number
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or Stream
Width Impact Length of
indicate on
( Intermittent? Before (linear feet) Impact
map) Impact (acres)

Non-RPW UT to Irwin Creek Tailditching and Intermittent 1-3' 135 if 0
005
Stream A matting .
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 135 if 0.005
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on map) ocean, etc.) (acres)
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres) N/A
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the nroiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.005 acre
Temporary Stream Impacts (acres): N/A
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.005 acre
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 135 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
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
Page 4 of 8
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. The
grading/stabilization will be stopped at the shortest point as dictated by the channel's profile and
stability. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to
downstream waters.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
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.
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.
Page 5 of 8
This project will improve flow through the existing stream channel. CSWS believes that this
project will provide an overall benefit to downstream. waters and is therefore proposing no
mitigation.
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)
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
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 V Yes ? No
Page 6 of 8
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* (squImpct are feet) Multiplier Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
Gone t extends out 30 teet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Sources of nearby impervious cover include
roads, driveways, and rooftops. This project will not cause an increase in the impervious
coverage of the project 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 ? 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
Page 7 of 8
proiect is located within an existing residential area. No future development is scheduled as a
result of the completion of this proiect.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Construction is scheduled to begin immediately following receipt of the appropriate permits.
-3 4.aa?
IIZZ-
6/9/08
Apphcant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 05/30/2008 Project- 2503 Fairstone Avenue Latitude: N35.293390
------------------------------ ------------------------------- -------
Evaluator PAB Site: SCP1 Longitude: W80.799970
Total Points-, other Non-RPW Stream A
S"am is of feast if 2r rattent
if -a 1 g county. Mecklenburg
if ? or erenr.ial if _ 30 19.00 e.g. Quad Name:
-
- A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 7.0 5
---------------------
------ -Absent
:
_ Weak - Moderate Strong

-
------
1'. Continuous bed and bank
--------
2.0
3 -
--
1
2 -
3

-- 2..__Sinuosity
__---_--_-___---_-_-__-____________________-___---._____________-___________-_-_-_---_ 1.0
-
--_ 0 1 2 3
:
3. in-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence -.
i_-_-__
1,0 .______________-____________i_______-
0 -__---------__-_---------.
1 2 __{____________._____________________
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.01 0 1 2 3
5. Activefrelicfloodplain
- ------------------------- 0.0
- 0 1
; 2 3
-
6. Depositional bars or benches -
+
1.01 --- --
0 - - - - ._..
1
- -- -_
-----i__
__-- -----____3_
-
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
o". Recent alluvial deposits 0.0 0 1 2 3
T
- ----- - -- - - - - ------ - - - ?-
9" Natural levees 0.0s -- - -
0 - +-- -------------------+
1 _
2 - -
--- ---
3

-- 10. Headcuts
---------------------------------- - - - 0.0 0 1 2 3
- --
11 _ Grade controls
0.5::
0
0.5
1. --
1.5

--- 12_ Natural valley or drainageway
.
----------_.---------.--------------------------------.-...---.--------------------------- Q 5 ; 0
. 0.5
• 1 1.5
-
-
..
.._...-----
13_ Second or greater order channel on exi- stinct --------•------ -----•-------.._ ....--------
-------- --------------------------
---- -------•--------- ....... ..---
---------------------------------
USGS or MRCS wrap or other documented No = 0 Yes= 3
evidence.
- ---------- - - 0.0
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
8. I_-iydro?o??! ?St€bloYal = 6.5
------------
---------- ---
-------- ----
--- - --
14. GroundwaterfloWdischarge 1.0; 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or

_.
_.._._.Water in channel --dry or growing season
---------------------
2.0
--------------- 0

-- ••------------

----------- ----- -_ 1

...._......-- --•-•-----
---- 2

•----------------• 3

-------•-- -
•------------•-------------------
16. Leaf€itter 1.: 1.5 -
1 0.5 -
0
IT Sediment on plants or debris 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5

•- 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
- 1,0; 0 0.5
' 1 1.5
=
i
-----------------------------------------------.............. ----------
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1,5 -------- --- -------
No = O --_---____-----
--- ---------- ------- ------ --------
----
Yes= 1-5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.50
20+''. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 ``. Rooted plants in channel 2.0 3 2
------
---
- - 1
-
-
-- 0

-
-
-
22_ Crayfish 0.0 0 -
0.5 -
-
---
t _ 1.5 -
-
23. Bivalves
-- - - -- -- - ------- 0.0 0 1 2 3
- - -
24. Fish
-----------------------------------------------------------
0.01
{
0.5
1
1.5
-------------------------------- --------
-
25. Amphibians ----- -
0.0 0 0.5 t 1
28. Niiacrobenthos (note diversity and abundance' 0.5 i 0 0.5 1 1.5
-----•--••-------------------- _
-27_ Filamentous algae_ periphy-ton
0:0:
0 .....................................................
s 1 ......... ------
3

28_ Iran oxidizing bacteriaJfungus. -
0.0' 0 ----------------------------------
0.5 ------------------- ______________.
1 1.5
29'. Wetland plants in strearnbed 0.00 FAG = 0.5; FACW = 0. 75, OSL = 1.5 SA`J = 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 .

Notes: €use back side of this form for additional notes.
) Sketch:
d,F
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Non-RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Paul Bright
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/30/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Irwin Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 60 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 85 take the Graham Street exit. Exit 40
and turn right onto N. Graham Street. Travel approximately 1.3 miles and turn left onto W Sugar Creek Road Travel approximately
0.4 mile and turn left onto Maple Street. Travel approximately <0.1 mile and turn left onto Derita Avenue Travel approximately 0 1
mile and Derita Avenue turns into Hewitt Drive. Travel approximately 0.1 mile and turn left onto Menton Lane Travel
approximately 0.1 mile and turn right onto Fairstone Avenue. The site is located at 2503 Fairstone Avenue
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.29339 °, W80.79997 °
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): maintenance
14. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny, no rain in past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 80 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? (!9 NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 85 % Residential 10 % Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
5 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
21. Bankfull Width: 1-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%a) -Moderate (4 to 10%0) -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): 32 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 6/11/08
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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1- Non-RPW Stream A
C,
R

a. UA:
ACT,RISTICS
;,
.3 ??
1
?"
u
?
,
l
,. ,,
L Yes
• -?Y.?Q
? f y Rl.1?? ? ? ? . .
,
L Presence of flow l persistent pools insstream= ?

(no low or saturation - 0: strong filow - max ants) Q 1
Evidence of past human alteration

(extensive alteration - 0, no alteration - atax pints) 6 0-51, Q 3 3
Riparian zone
'
(uobuffer - O;rcontilnous, wide buffer = max points,)
0-6
0-4
0_5
2
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges Q

(extensive disehar es = 0. no discharges -max oints)
: 0-4 0-4 - 4
.?` Groundwater discharge '

d
;U

(
(no discharges- 0. springs, see s, wetlands, etc: mat Points)

P
f
d 0 3 0-4" 0-4 1
6 resence o
a
jacent floodplai?

no, thod p lain - 0: extensive flood lam - tnax points) 0 0- 2 0
Entrenchment / tloodplain access

("dee hr entrenched- 0: tre ucnt flooding = max points) () 5 0 0- ?' 1
g Presence of adjacentwedand,

Ino wetlands= 0. large. adjacent wetlands = max " oints) 0-6 G--4 2' 0
9 Channel sinuosity

(extensive channelization - 0: natural meander= max oinrO 0 5 - 0.- 3 1
10 Sediment input 4

('extensiti^ede deposition- 0, little or no sedimenr•- max point,,,) 0_5 (? '?V 0- 1
1 t Size & diversity of channel bed substrate

(fne.homo?enous 0, large, diverse. size,-. imax points) 4 01-5 2
I? Evidence ofchamiel incision or widening

(dee lv incised 0: stable bed & banks - max points)

0. 5

0-4-

0
_

2
13 Presence of major hank failures

(severe erosion- 0, Tti erosion, stable banks= max points), 0-5 (I- 0^- 3

'
1`4 Root depth and-density- on hanks

(no visible roots 0: dense, roots throughout= max oink) 0 3 0 0- 5 0
E, Impact by agriculture or livestock, oroductioni.
+
f' (substantial' iin act=0, no evidence - max otnts)'
u-5
4 4'
u:-d-: '
4
1
6 Presence of riffle pool/ripple-pool complexes
? . (no riffiles,"r-i les or Dols- 0; welt-devely ed`- max points)
? 0-3 0_5 0' -6 2
1^ Habitat complexity

(littleor no habitat 0; tre q uenr, varied ltabitats?- max ` Points) 0-6 (Y?, -o 0-6 1

rs Canopy coverages over streambed
.

^
(no shadin t vegetation - 0: coutinuous canopy- max points) V 5 0
-5 0 s. 1
f g, Substrate emheddedness
(dee 1v embedded- 0; loose strucnzre = max) )
^ 4 4 2
_ t
2(} Presence of stream invertebrates
(no evidence - 0. common, numerous types = max points) 0 - 01- 5 0'- 1
1 Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0; common; numerous... types ? max points) 0_4 Q-4' 0- 0

2? Presence of fish

?-
(no evidence- 0: common: numerous t?Tes , max Points) 0 -4. 0 4< 0-4 0
{,a 23 Evidence of wildlife use '

no -evidence 0; abundant evidence- max ointO 0-6 0 -:5, 0 5. 0
' y T`ofal i`ttu,Passible k : a
xk
00
, >
,
t; _ s TOT '?C(R ? Stl > asfiik
'
' 32
,
e t - r
r„ y
nose cnaractensucs are not assessed to coastal streams.
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): June 9, 2008
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project, Charlotte, NC -
Non-RPW Stream A
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. N35.29339°, Long. W80.79997°;
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Irwin Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Sugar Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
EJ 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):
21 Office (Desk) Determination. Date: June 9, 2008
Q Field Determination. Date(s): May 30, 2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Arc "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. Tndicate 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
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: 135 linear feet: 1-3 width (ft) and/or 0.01 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 gelineation M: uai
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
` Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 IILDA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and 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: 30 square nipq,
Drainage area: 60 acre
Average annual rainfall: 44 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are la-l river miles from TNW.
Project waters are I: (or leW river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5=I6 darial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Vfp tes aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: Non-RPW Stream A flows to UT of Irwin Creek to UT of Irwin Creek to UT of Irwin
Creek to Irwin Creek to Sugar Creek.
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the acid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
Tributary stream order, if known: First.
(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: 1-3 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes:'
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: Moderate erosion.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Weak riffle/pool complexes.
Tributary geometry: Relatively stlaighl
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2-4 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Intermittent bust not seas slflow
-ul
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 11-2t
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: DiscrSte and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: )k%. Explain findings: Weak groundwater presence.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving Z
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
® water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Muddy groundwater.
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): Residential, <20 feet on right side of channel; >100 feet on left
side of channel.
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pi*Lis . Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick-Lis[
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationshin) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick Lisj river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick Liss floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick Lis
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on' the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: Based on the
discussion above, the tributary has more than a speculative or insubstantial capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs.
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:
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: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 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: 135 linear feet 1-3 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? `.Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 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: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
[ Wetlands that do not directly abut.an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
?l 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):"
? 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:
$See Footnote # 3.
'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 Rapano&
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):
72 Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Q Lakes/ponds: acres.
71 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):
ET 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:
Q 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.
?' U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:USGS 7.5' Derita, NC Topographic Quadrangle,dated 1996.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
Sheet No. 4, dated 1980.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
[1 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.
I] 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:
Or a.
-Y Hih L ? -Mark (O NM Doci cnta-ion Form
(-Per U.S. Amy Comas of -Engineers RegWator7 Gmidance setter 05 -05) -
Date 30/0 Observation Point SCP/
Site 2563 F4' rSA&? Avon d4 Investigator(s)
S W A Primary Indicators
? ? Natural line impressed on bank
? ? Shelving
? [iO? ? Changes in character of soil
? ? Destruction of terrestrial- vegetation
? ? Presence of litter and debris
0 Er ? Wracking
? F"' ? Vegetation matted down, bent or absent
? Q' ? Sediment sorting
? Y ? Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? ? Y Scour
? 5 11 Deposition
? ? Er Multiple observed flow. events
C' ? ? Bed and banks -n--
? R' ? Water staining
? ? l" Change in plant community
S = Strong W = Weak A = Absent
17
Notes.
Secondary Data Sources '
Lake and stream gage data ? Flood predictions
Elevation data ? Historic records of water flow
Spillway height ? Statistical evidence
Y N
OHtiVVi d" ?
irI

1" = 3.95 mi Data Loom a-ei
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project Date: 05/30/08
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Storm Water Services County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Paul Bright 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 Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Acer rubrum tree FAC 9
2 Liquidambar styracii lua tree FAC+ 10
3 Parthenocissus quinquefolia vine FAC 11
4 Vitis rotundifolia vine FAC 12
5 Toxicodendron radicans vine FAC 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are O BL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
100% of the dominant plant sp ecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology are resent.
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 1 of 2 6/9/2008
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (HeB) Drainage Class Moderately weB drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic A uic Ha ludults 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 5YR 4/6 N/A N/A Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of h dric soils are resent. -
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes MNo (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2 6/2/2008

2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No 3 Project No. 2008-2305

2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No 3 Project No. 2008-2305
2503 i+airstone Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No 3 Project No. 2008-2305
Photograph E. View of debris in channel, facing downstream.
Photograph F. View of Non-RPW Stream A, facing downstream.

2503 Fairstone Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No. 3 Project No. 2008-2305