20081171 Ver 1_401 Application_20080708

0 8- 1 1 7 1
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name 3747 Stokes 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/
5. Site Address: 3747 Stokes Avenue, Charlotte, NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Charlotte
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: N35.14168° Long: W80.84116° (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Charlotte East, dated 1991
11. Waterway: UT to Little Sugar Creek
12. Watershed:- Catawba (HU# 03050103)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 3, 13, 27, & 33 D E @
General Permit # J
JUL, 3 1 2008
X Jurisdictional Determination Request DM -WATER QUALITY
Pre-Application Request WETLANDS MD STOROATER BRANCH
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
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:
a?
)icws
Carolina Wetland Services
July 29, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
ED q1
JUL 3 1 2008
WE RAND AND STORMWATTEER BRAND{
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 13, 27, and
33 and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3687, 3688, and 3689
3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2008-2358
The 3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project is located approximately 0.5 mile south of the Park
South Drive - Fairview Road intersection in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1, enclosed). The
purpose of this project is to replace an existing pipe system and improve flow through an existing
stream channel. 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: 3747 Stokes Avenue, Charlotte, NC
Waterway: UT to Little Sugar Creek
Basin: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.14168°, W80.84116°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Charlotte East, NC 1991
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), box
elder (Acer negundo), red elm (Ulmus rubra), basswood (Tilia heterophylla), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), English ivy (Hedera helix), and
bamboo (Bambusa spp.). According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County', on-site soils consist
of Helena sandy loam (HeB). Helena soils are moderately well-drained and are listed by the NRCS as
soils with hydric inclusions for Mecklenburg County'.
Jurisdictional Determination
On July 18, 2008, CWS's Paul Bright and Gregg Antemann, PWS investigated on-site jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Routine On-Site Determination
l United States Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
2 NRCS Hydric Soils of North Carolina, December 15, 1995.
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • NEW YORK
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
July 29, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 2 of 4
Method. This method is defined in 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 as data point 1 (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, and USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination 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
Little Sugar Creek. Little Sugar Creek is within the Catawba River basin (HU# 03050103)5 and is
classified as "Class C" waters by the NCDWQ.
Stream A flows north through the project area for approximately 155 linear feet (Figure 1, enclosed).
Stream A exhibited a strong bed and bank, substrate consisting of silt to small cobbles, and an average
ordinary high water width of 3-5 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 27 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet and 22 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form (SCP1, enclosed). Photographs of Non-RPW Stream A are enclosed as
Photographs A - E.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 21, 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 July 21, 2008 to
determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical
habitat located within the project area. In a response letter, dated July 24, 2008 (enclosed), the
NCNHP stated that they have "no record of rare species, natural communities, or significant natural
heritage areas within two miles of the project area."
Purpose and Need for the Project
The existing stream and pipe system at 3747 Stokes Avenue are experiencing drainage and erosion
issues. Flow within the current stream channel is being disturbed due to litter/debris coming from
upstream. The channel has some erosion due to a steep (approximately 3.5%) longitudinal gradient.
To improve flow and control erosion within the channel, CSWS is proposing to replace the damaged
pipe system, enhance portions of the channel, and install a diversion pipe that will divert water to the
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.
2
July 29, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 3 of 4
downstream pipe system. The inlet will be installed upgradient of where the channel becomes
jurisdictional and the pipe system will not result in grading or fill impacts within Non-RPW Stream A.
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters are necessary to alleviate erosion within the channel.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
The number of in-channel structures has been minimized to the maximum extent necessary to
effectively dissipate the energy through the channel. A drop inlet connected to the diversion pipe will
be installed upstream of Non-RPW Stream A, reducing impacts to the existing jurisdictional channel.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters. All work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Qualification No. 3689.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts to Non-RPW Stream A total approximately 19 linear feet and are the result of
stream enhancement activities. The existing channel is isolated between two pipe systems and is
experiencing drainage and erosion issues. The existing headwall at the upper portion of the existing
36" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) located at the downstream end of Stream A will be replaced with a
drop inlet. In addition, a series of grade control structures will be placed within the channel to
enhance flow and stabilize the longitudinal profile of the channel. A proposed profile drawing has
been included (Figure 3, enclosed). Furthermore, approximately 50 bank feet of banks will be stabilized
through reshaping and stabilization with C-350 permanent erosion control matting. To further control
future erosion issues, a diversion pipe will be installed upstream of the existing jurisdictional channel.
This pipe system will intercept four acres of drainage coming from the upstream pipe system and divert it
to the downstream pipe system. The channel segment downstream of the new diversion pipe inlet will
still receive stormwater from a four acre drainage area. This pipe system is necessary to alleviate future
channel erosion associated with flashy flows that come from the upstream pipe system. A proposed
profile of the diversion pipe has been included (Figure 4, enclosed). 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 (NWP) Nos. 3, 13, 27, and 33 and
Water Quality Certification Nos. 3687, 3688, and 3689 (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.
July 29, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 4 of 4
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. Bri t
Project Scientist
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Charlotte East, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts
Figure 3. Profile of Stream Impacts
Figure 4. Profile of Pipe
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 27 and 33
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (SCP1)
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Documentation Form (SCP1)
Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map (Figure 5)
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
Representative Photographs (A - E)
Agency Correspondence
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Cantrell, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
4
3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit Nos 3 13, 27, and 33 Project No. 2008-2358
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Charlotte East Quadrangle, North Carolina, dated 1991.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3 13, 27, and 33 Project No. 2008-2358
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS
NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 7, dated 1976.
Approximate Scale F = 2000'
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED
AND CLASSIFIED BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. (CWS)
ON JULY 18, 2008. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN
VERIFIED BY THE USACE.

N
W E
S
Non-RPW Stream A
Approximately 155 linear feet
SCP1
1 f ?`
DP1
Legend
Project Boundary
Jurisdictional Stream Channel
Pipes
• SCP1 Stream Classification Point
• DPI Data Point
Photo Location and Direction
RPW Relatively Permanent Water
APPROX IMATE SCALE 1" = 50'
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
C} C S 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: CIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY LAND USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, DATED 2007.
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdiction Boundary Field Map
3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
EE2008-2358
PA {? 7/ CWS Z'S/0A Pro/0n ject No. 2008-2358
PREPARED BY
`'1` DATE
IPAR DATE C pp
'7. Z5 Ag
>t`
do
d:
?j,
,f , a.
\Y, .` \h
i
V

Q.
i ?.
_ Li
FjJ? I .,
j ?;

y ? / 1?
y..?, .
f }
I ?s 1?
i
G: a1.-
t:.
°? t
1
I
{
1
.r
n
j ?{t
l?
t. _m
i f
J?
l

7
;y ti
v
P1?
t_

U

M
a?
. ti ? N S O
a? w ?" 0o

'? Cdd
b
0 o Qw d C N
t
U 3 E p o0

AteA?'
y/
? O

Z w
? G> .? U N
? ? .C
Q b+ Q

?
c?
?
W z
a f3, p Z
°?z?
a?
p
p
O i w
¢ , q
> ''
N
?d=a
e
U o ve
a a

U N
F ?u
wSvU
o
r
v M

?? U

? wz
w
tee.:' 1 W
F4

t ?,
1
1 \-i
1 l
?
f

?. I
i 11
l '1 ? J
1
i?
4
1
C
I
?t
t?
1
;
I

y 1 , .
1?
4
..
1

iI i
..

i '
U
Fri
M
> V "
rr^W^
VI
? U
v3o
Iwo
o
? U
V
w ?
u //'rrp
h`
? O N
O
+'t•'+ A V N
w?oz
0
?. a u
i ._.? t
h L I i
+ tl I I
a 1 } 31>
41
! 1 ;n ! ? + , _?? i . I ? _ x•27? : I I
cz?
tea. ;}? ? ? •.L ? -. r'1 `-,? ? i :,

4
t,?j .a' + :
x. :Ll
tea
§ r L ? ?

?
I a i

17L
„m

j

i C3
V
i

,
'tA
cl
r
t
i
I ;

1.I.
t
1 ?

j. ff }
C/) O O ? 6a R 00 4.4 ?i? F 1 ?
ow a N, f ! i
00
? ? s I
I C kr)
??•°a !.-!.t, a 1, -},
s. U eA .c j 1 ' I
I:
.:?? mot. ..j .jt+.,. ?, 1: ?-}- ..j iJ
' 11 } .} t •? _- Ire ? , ! .. ''' } ,t_ ?...1: '
,
i f
CL;
ut
f` j ?' It
lki-
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
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, 13, 27, and 33 and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3687, 3688, and
3689
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: ow (
R L^r
II. Applicant Information d.
JUL 3 1 2008
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: City of Charlotte Storm Water Services, Contact: Mr. Isaac J. Hinson WEruu,oSVANC SToR? ?BRM'Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte North Carolina 28202
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: ihinson(a),ci.charlotte.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
Page 1 of 8
E-mail Address:_
III. Project Information
1. Name of project: 3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
179-043-08
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Interstate 77 take the
Tvvola Road exit, Exit 5 and turn east on to Tyvola Road. Travel approximately 2.6 miles
and turn right onto Park Road. Travel approximately 0.5 mile and turn left onto Archdale
Drive. Travel approximately 0.3 mile and turn left onto Park S Drive. Travel approximately
325 feet and turn right onto Stokes Avenue. Travel approximately 0.3 mile and the site is on
the left at 3747 Stokes 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): 35.14168 ON 80.84116 °W
6. Property size (acres): < 1 acre
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Little Sugar 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 adiacent wooded areas.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
project proposes to replace and modify the damaged Pipe system and stabilize/enhance the
eroding channel. 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 3747
Stokes Avenue are experiencing drainage and erosion issues. Flow within the current stream
channel is being disturbed due to litter/debris coming from upstream. The 'channel has some
erosion due to a steep (approximately 3.5%) longitudinal gradient. To improve flow and
control erosion within the channel, CSWS is proposing to replace the damaged pipe system,
enhance portions of the channel, and install a diversion pipe that will divert water to the
downstream pipe system. The inlet will be installed upgradient of where the channel
becomes jurisdictional and the pipe system will not result in grading or fill impacts within
Page 2 of 8
Non-RPW Stream A. Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters are necessary to alleviate
erosion within the channel.
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 futureproject plans for this site.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Unavoidable impacts to Non-RPW
Stream A total approximately 19 linear feet and are the result of stream enhancement
activities. The existing channel is isolated between two pipe systems and is experiencing
drainage and erosion issues. The existing headwall at the upper portion of the existing 36"
corrugated metal pipe (CMP) located at the downstream end of Stream A will be replaced
with a drop inlet. In addition, a series of grade control structures will be placed within the
channel to enhance flow and stabilize the longitudinal profile of the channel. A proposed
profile drawing has been included (Figure 3, enclosed). Furthermore, approximately 50 bank
feet of banks will be stabilized through reshaping and stabilization with C-350 permanent
erosion control matting. To further control future erosion issues, a diversion pipe will be
installed upstream of the existing jurisdictional channel. This wipe system will intercept four
acres of drainage coming from the upstream pipe system and divert it to the downstream pipe
system. The channel segment downstream of the new diversion pipe inlet will still receive
stormwater from a four acre drainage area. This pipe system is necessary to alleviate future
channel erosion associated with flashy flows that come from the upstream pipe system. A
Proposed profile of the diversion pipe has been included (Figure 4, 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
Page 3 of 8
Total Wetland Impact (acres) N/A
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Average Area
Number Perennial or Stream Impact Length of
(indicate on Stream Name Type of Impact Intermittent? Width (linear feet) Impact

map) Before
(acres)
Impact
Non-RPW UT to Little Sugar Enhancement Intermittent 3-5' 19 if 0
01
Stream A Creek .
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 19 if 0.01
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 project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.01 acre
Temporary Stream Impacts (acres): N/A
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.01 acre
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 19 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
Page 4 of 8
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. The number of in-
channel structures has been minimized to the maximum extent necessary to effectively dissipate
the energy through the channel. A drop inlet connected to the diversion pipe will be installed
upstream of Non-RPW Stream A, reducing impacts to the existing jurisdictional channel Proper
sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters. All work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Qualification No 3689
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/stn--ngide.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)
Page 5 of 8
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 unimportant intermittent stream
impacts to less than 150 linear feet; therefore, no mitigation is currently being proposed for
this site.
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 SERA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No
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.
Page 6 of 8
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
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
Lone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Sources of nearby impervious cover include
roads, driveways, and rooftops. This 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.
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)
Page 7 of 8
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
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.

r
7/29/08
Appheant/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 Mater Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 07/18/2008 Protect- 3747 Stokes Avenue Latitude: N35.14168°
Evaluator: PAB & GCA Site: SCP1 Longitude: W80.841160
- - - - -------- ------ ------------
Total Points: Other Non-R.PW Stream A
Slearn is of feria Irit 2r 30 ent
if? 19 or erenriaf it ? 3L 22.00 county' Mecklenburg e.g. Quad Na?ne:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= -13.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strang

1 1 `. Continuous bed and bank
3.0
0
1 - --
2
3
2. -Sinuosit'y'
- _ . --.._ ____-______._.__--______________________-_._.____.___-___._----___._.___ 1.0:
____..___-{__ 0
_.__.____________._ i 1 2 3

3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
2.0 __
0 ._________-{._..____ -_______.___--_
1 _-__--{--__---...._.______.___.____-{_______-_
2 ..-____._________________.
3
4. Sail texture or stream substrate sorting 2.01 3 1 2 3
5. A.ctivefrelic f€oodplain
- - -- -- - - - -----------•------------------------
- 0.0
-- -+ 0 2 3

6. Depositional bars or benches
2.0' -
0
1 - --------
2
3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
------------------- - -

--
-- - --------------------- 2 0' 0 1 2

' 3
--------------- +-
9< Natural levees 0.01 0 - - - -
1 - - --+ -----------------------------
+-------
2 --------- ---------- =
3
10. Headcuts

;________ __
-------------------•-------------------------_----------------------------------

°-O -o

i
--
3
11. Grade controls
------------------------------------ ---------
-- 0
1= 0 0.5 1 1.5
-
--------------
12_ Natural valley or drainageway
- - - - - - • - ------- -----------
- {
---
0.5:: --------------
0 ---------

° --------
0.5
1
-1.5
-
----------------
Second or greater order channel on existing[ --------- -------------- ---------
-------- ------ -•-------- ----- ...............
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No= 0 Yes= 3
evidence. 0.0
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
8._Hydrolog? (Subtotal = 5.5
) -
--
-------------
14. Groundwater floWdischarge -------------
0
0 --------------------
0 ------------------- --------------
1 ------------------------------------------- --
2 --------- --------------
. 3
15. Water in channel and '> 48 hrs since rain
or
,
Water ' Water in channel _:_.!Y_orrowring season
1 a ? c 3
i 16. Leaflitter
1.5
# .5
--
------- ---------
.5
----- -------------------------------------------
--------------
-----
IT Sediment on plants or debris 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18-Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)- 1.5:
0

=
0.5
1
1.5
_
-
19. €-€ydric soils {redoximorphic features} present?1.5 : -- - --
No = 0 - -------------------------------------
Yes= 1.5 ---------------------
C. Biology (Subtotal = 3.00
' 20'•. Fibrous roots in channel
1.01
3
-- '. 2
1
0
21`_ Rooted plants in dhannel --------
--------------------------- -- 2-Q=
- 2 1 a ,
0
-
22
Crayfish 0.01 ---------
0 ---•-- r - -
0.5 -- - ---
1 -------------
1.5
23. Bivalves
--------------------- ------------- ------------- --------------------- ------------ 0.0
- - -1 0
1
2
?
3
-24: Fish

__ __-------- _-----------------------------------------------------------
-
0.0
0
0.5 -----------
1 -------------------
1.5
-
-----------------------
25. Amphibians ---------- .7.
0.0 --------------------------
0 ------- {__--.______-__-_-_-_.___..._

0.5
_______
1

1.5
26_ Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
•------------------------ -------------•-------------..-------- ----- 0.0
------------- 0
-- 0.5
=
! 1 1.5

27_ Filamentous algae, periphyton
____ __________
_
0.0 -----------------------
0 --
----------------------------------
.-------------
1
2 _
--•-----..
_.-3__________
_
_____
28_ Iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus. _____.__-_.________________
0.0 0 .-.____.________...____________{.__-______-____
0.5 __.__-.-.--____________.____
1 ___________________..:
1.5
29 ___ Wetland plants in streambed 0.00: )=AC = 0.5; FACW = 075; 06L = 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. -- -- -
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes. ') Sketch,
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Non-RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP I
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Paul Bright and Gregg Antemann
3. Date of Evaluation: 7/18/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:00 am
5. Name -of Stream: UT to Little Sugar Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 8 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 ft 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 77 take the Tvvola Road exit, Exit 5
and turn east on to Tvvola Road. Travel approximately 2.6 miles and turn right onto Park Road. Travel approximately 0.5 mile and
turn left onto Archdale Drive. Travel approximately 0.3 mile and turn left onto Park S Drive. Travel approximately 325 feet and turn
right onto Stokes Avenue. Travel approximately 0.3 mile and the site is on the left at 3747 Stokes Avenue
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.141680W80.84116°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): maintenance
14. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny, no rain in past 24 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 85 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? (a) NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? G) NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 100 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (_
21. Bankfull Width: 3-4' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank)
3-4'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) X 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): 27 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature %--? Date 7/18/08
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
I 1 hese characteristics are not assessed in 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): July 28, 2008
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 3747 Stokes 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. N35.14168° Long. W80.84116°S.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Sugar 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.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: July 28, 2008
Field Determination. Date(s): July 18, 2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
l?p
There "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 M "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 155 linear feet: 3-5 width (ft) and/or 0.01 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on 114-10
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): wgvV W
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IH.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 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: 332 std
Drainage area 8
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 aerial (straight) miles fro
Iles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Project waters are river miles from TNW
Project waters RP W.
are river miles from
Pro m TNW.
Project waters are 1,?+n?less aerial (straight) m
Identify flow route to TNW': Non-RPW Stream A flows to Little Sugar Creek to Sugar Creek.
Tributary stream order, if known: First.
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swaies, 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: 3-4 feet
Average depth: 3-4 feet
Average side slopes 1"_41".
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: Strong erosion.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Moderate riffle/pool complexes.
Tributary geometryN??t
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 4-10 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for Jfr€entkfiuir€a? €la
Estimate average number of flow events in reviewmarea/year:
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow i Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: . Explain findings:
1.9
?. 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):
F1 Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
EJ, 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: Weak presence of water in channel; clear.
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; <10 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: . Explain:
Surface flow is: f O s
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: 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 (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are j" river miles from TNW.
o?,
Project waters are Ptek Lis aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from:
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List tloodplain.
(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
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):
El ; 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: 155 linear feet 3-5 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.
El' 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 IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-"Ws that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
J 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):"
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section II1-D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
to 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):
77 Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Ski 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:USGS 7.5' Charlotte East, NC Topographic Quadrangle,dated 1991.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
Sheet No. 7, dated 1980.
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:
Ordinary Water Mar ? 1 Documentation For.
(-Per U.S. A =-y Corps of p eers Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-0:5) -
Date 7 t $ - 0$ Observation Point SCE l
Site 37 q 7 Sto tes AVenue Investigators) -F-A$ Am d (76A
S W A

N ? ?

? ?
5? ? ?

Primary Indicators,
Natural line impressed on bank
Shelving
Changes in character of soil
Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
Presence of litter and debris
Wxaclcng
Vegetation matted down, bent or absent
Sediment sorting
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Scour
Deposition
Multiple observed flow- events
Bed and banks - -
Water staining
Change in plant community
S = Strong W = Weak A = Absent

Notes.
Secondary Data. Sources '
Lake and stream gage data ? Flood predictions
Elevation data ? I-Iistoric records of water flow
Spillway height ? Statistical evidence
Y N
OHWNI X ?
1 3,y
q
XMapO 4.0
: Lowesville ?.
¦Huntersville j--'
............................... ....................
t.
a Roberta Mill
v d '..
\ 21 Watershed Size - 332 square miles
Capps
W rH .. HII porfta
¦ Y'
??-? ?? Newell
Catawba Heights "Paw Creek ? _ -
rtli_Belmont ^, y([ 7
Cramert "n \521 i '7 - Hickory Grove
Charlotte ¦
49 ti
24
i
Mint Hip,
273 a '
f. v
=o' r awrRivet,
Drainage Area - 8 acres °Matth_ s
4-
y ,.idlan Trail.
P idence Red
Hill
15211
v- 160 ¦Weddington
16 84
i
?
' Figure 5
901 `\w ) --
TN Scale 1 : 225,000
© 2003 DeLorme. XMape. ??III o 33 g m;
www.delorme.com MN I6.rW p 6 8 p Mm
1" = 3.55 mi Data Zoom 9-7
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project Date: 07/18/08
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Storm Water Services County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Paul Bright and Gregg Antemann 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: DP1
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Acer rubrum Stratum
tree Indicator
FAC Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Acer negundo tree FACW 10
3 Ulmus rubra tree FAC 11
4 Tilia heterophylla tree FACU 12
5 Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC 13
6 Bambusa sp. shrub * 14
7 Hedera helix vine * 15
8 Parthenocissus quinquefolia vine FAC 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
83%
Remarks: ' Please note this species was not identified to species and was therefore excluded from the FAC-Neutral test.
Greater than 50% of the dominant plant species are FAC or wetter.
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: >121V (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrolog_y are
11 resent.
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 1 of 2 7/23/2008
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Helena sandy loam, 2-8 percent slope (HeB) Drainage Class moderately well 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.
0-2" A 2.5Y 3/2 N/A N/A Sandy loam
2-12" B 2.5Y 6/4 N/A N/A Sandy 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 (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes 'A' this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2 7/25/2008
3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit Nos 3 13, 27, and 33 Project No. 2008-2358
Photograph A. View of channel bed located in Non-RPW Stream A.
Photograph B. View of Non-RPW Stream A, facing upstream.
3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3. 13, 27, and 33 Project No. 2008-2358
Photograph C. View of Non-RPW Stream A, facing upstream.
Photograph D. View of Non-RPW Stream A, facing downstream.
3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit Nos 3 13, 27, and 33 Project No. 2008-2358
74 95 WA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Jamie MacMartin and Paul Bright
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E. Westinghouse BLVD
Charlotte, NC 28273
July 24, 2008
SUBJECT: Request for records search, 3747 Stokes Avenue Maintenance Project
Charlotte, NC, Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2008-2358
Dear Ms. MacMartin and Mr. Bright:
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The Natural Heritage Program has no records of a rare species, natural communities, or significant natural heritage areas
within two miles of the project area. Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the
project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been
surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of rare plants and
animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map.
Our Program also has a website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and significant natural
heritage areas within two miles of a given location: http://nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us/nhis/public/gmap75_main.phtml. The
user name is "public" and the password is "heritage". You may want to click "Help" to download the user's manual
before you use the application. This website gives you instant answers to information requests about specific locations,
without having to wait for NHP staff to respond.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. This service provides site specific information on
GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NC
OneMap website provides Element Occurrence (EO) ID numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then
encouraged to contact the Natural Heritage Program for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and
efficiently get site specific NHP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be
answered by NHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit www.nconemap.com, then click on
"FTP Data Download", and then "nheo.zip" [to the right of "Natural Heritage Element Occurrences"]. You may also e-
mail NC OneMap at [e-mail] for more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8700 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Misty Buchanan, Botanist
NC Natural Heritage Program
NORTH CAROLINA
Natural
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 Heritage_ 04
Phone: [phone] Email: [e-mail] 1 www.ncnhp.org Program
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper SCIENCE GUIDING CONSERVATION
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: July 29, 2008
COUNTY Mecklenburg County, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT <1 acre
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) 3747 Stokes 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 Charlotte East, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X) NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Figure 1)
(X) Proposed Impacts (Figure 2)
(X) Profile of Stream Impacts (Figure 3)
(X) Profile of Pipe (Figure 4)
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 3 , 13, 27, and 33
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP 1)
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Determination Four (SCP 1)
(X) Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Documentation Four (SCP 1)
(X) Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map (Figure 5)
(X) Routine On-Site Data Form (DP 1)
(X) Representative Photographs (A - E)
?
(X) Agency Correspondence
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Isaac J. Hinson