20081410 Ver 1_401 Application_20080908

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
SAME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704.523.4726
704.525-3953 fax
To: Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27604-2260
- 4 1 0
PAYM r?!T -
SEP 1 7 2008
DENR - WATER QDA11"y
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Date: 9.12.08
Job No. 1357.08.504
Re: Piedmont Natural Gas
Dixie River Road System
Strengthening
We Are Sending You: ? Attached ? Under separate cover via
following items:
? Shop drawings ? Proposal ? Plans ? Samples ? Specifications
? Copy of letter ® Report
the
Copies Date No Description
5 09.05.08 1 ANOlication for Nationwide Permit No. 12
These Are Transmitted As Checked Below:
® For approval ? For your use
? As requested ? For Review And Comment
? For Bids Due: ? Prints Returned After Loan To Us
Remarks: Please call if you have any questions -
Copy To: File
A,(4(k
Signed:

S&ME
Celebrating 35 Years
1973.2008
September 5, 2008
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin
SEp 1 7 2008
N.C. Division of Water Quality
QVJ
A
401 Wetlands Unit RB
pENR pS?
s??
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 To
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Reference: Application for Nationwide Permit No. 12 and
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-08-504
Dear Mr. Chapin and Ms. Karoly:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is submitting this application for impacts to waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands, in accordance with Department of the Army Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 12, along with supporting documentation for a verification of jurisdictional
boundaries. S&ME has been retained by Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG), the applicant for
the proposed project, to provide services related to acquisition of the NWP and
corresponding North Carolina Water Quality Certification (WQC) pursuant to the Clean
Water Act. The project will involve the construction of approximately three miles of 10-
inch diameter natural gas pipeline in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. In support of
this NWP No. 12 application please find enclosed the following:
• Appendix I: Agent Authorization Form and Pre-Construction Notification (PCN);
• Appendix II: Figures - Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map
(Figure 2), 2005 Aerial Photograph (Figures 3A and 313), USDA Soil Survey Map
(Figure 4), Approximate Waters of the U.S. Map (Figures 5A - 5G), Typical
Wetland and Stream Crossings (Figures 6A and 613);
• Appendix III: Site Photographs;
• Appendix IV: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms;
• Appendix V: Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets, N.C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) Stream Identification Forms;
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
Nationwide Permit No. 1 2/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening September 5, 2008
• Appendix VI: Agency Correspondence;
• Appendix VII: Restoration Plan; and
• Check for $240 (DWQ).
Copies of this PCN, along with a check for the processing fee, are being provided to
DWQ for written concurrence because the proposed project does not meet Condition No.
4 as specified by WQC 3374. Specifically, the proposed gas line will cross one stream
within the project corridor at a less than near-perpendicular angle. The proposed route
has been selected to generally parallel and abut the existing N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) right-of-way for Interstate-485 (I-485), where practicable. This
route was selected to minimize clearing of interior forested land, but will result in one
non-perpendicular crossing of waters of the U.S. Additionally, the maintenance corridor
will exceed 10 feet in jurisdictional areas; however, no additional wetland fills to the
maintenance corridor will result. It is our understanding that natural gas pipelines are
exempt from Condition No. 15 of WQC 3374, if mitigation is provided for additional fills
beyond the allowable 10-foot corridor. Since no additional fills are proposed, we do not
anticipate mitigating for the wider maintenance corridor.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The proposed pipeline is needed to supply additional pressure to an area of Mecklenburg
County that has experienced recent and ongoing growth. To continue providing adequate
pressure to existing customers, PNG must increase supply to also meet the needs of new
customers, particularly in developments including The Palisades and The Sanctuary. The
project will involve the construction of approximately three miles of 10-inch diameter
natural gas pipeline. The permanent easement width for the pipeline will be 50 feet. The
entire easement will be maintained in uplands; across streams and in wetlands the
construction and maintenance corridors will be reduced to 40 feet.
The origin of the proposed pipeline is located south of the northernmost crossing of Dixie
River Road and I-485 (35.2008°N, 80.96901°W). From there the pipeline continues
south, remaining adjacent to the I-485 right-of-way until its terminus at Steele Creek
Road (35.1656°N, 80.96734°W). The location of the corridor is depicted on the Site
Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the appropriate portion of the Charlotte West, N.C. USGS
Topographic Map, dated 1993 (Figure 2), 2005 Aerial Photograph (Figures 3A and 313)
and USDA Soil Survey Map (Figure 4) included in Appendix H.
The proposed project involves temporary and limited permanent impacts to waters of the
U.S. Impacts to waters of the U.S. are limited to seven stream crossings and three
wetland crossings. Permanent project-wide wetland impacts are limited to the
conversion of 0.053 acre of scrub/shrub and forested wetland to emergent.
Permanent, project-wide impacts to jurisdictional tributaries (perennial and
intermittent RPW) will be 145 linear feet (If). An additional 1351f of stream will be
temporarily impacted.
Nationwide Permit No. 1 2/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening September 5. 2008
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
During May 2008, S&ME wetland professionals visited the project corridor and
conducted a jurisdictional delineation to determine the location of waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. The delineation was conducted utilizing currently accepted methods
for wetland determination, as set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, which states that under normal circumstances, an area must
demonstrate the presence of three components to be considered jurisdictional: 1)
hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric soils, and 3) wetland hydrology. Furthermore, stream
assessments were conducted when necessary in accordance with DWQ and USACE
guidelines.
Field review identified three jurisdictional wetlands (Wetlands A through C) and seven
jurisdictional streams (Streams 1 through 7) within the project corridor. Figures 3A and
313 depict jurisdictional areas in relation to the project corridor. Approved Jurisdictional
Determination forms were prepared and are incorporated with this PCN for your
verification (Appendix IV). DWQ Stream Identification Forms, USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheets, and Routine Wetland Determination data forms are included in.
Appendix V. Jurisdictional areas in the project corridor were field-verified by Alan
Johnson of DWQ on June 12, 2008.
Table 1: Wetlands within Project Corridor'
Wetland ID Area within Project Wetland Type Lat/Lon
Corridor Acre
A 0.019 Forested and 35.1965°N
80.9695°W
scrub/shrub ,
B 0.024 Emergent and 35.1922°N
80.9714°W
Scrub-shrub ,
C 0.013 Forested and 35.1815°N
80.97°W
Emergent ,
Area calculated based on a project corridor width of 50 feet.
Table 2: Streams within Project Corridor'

Stream ID Length within Project
Corridor (I
Stream Type
Lat/Lon
1 50 Perennial 35.1963°N, 80.9695°W
2 50 Perennial 35.1923°N, 80.9715°W
3 53 Intermittent/
Seasonal RPW 35.1881 ON, 80.9705°W
4 50 Perennial 35.1816°N, 80.9700°W
5 50 Perennial 35.1809°N, 80.9699°W
6 50 Perennial 35.1754°N, 80.9703°W
7 50 Perennial 35.1684°N, 80.9687°W
Length based on a project corridor width of 50 feet.
Nationwide Permit No.12/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening September 5. 2008
The study corridor is largely comprised of a scrub/shrub transition between the
frequently-maintained NCDOT right-of-way and wooded areas. Additional habitat types
are also present along portions of the study corridor. These additional habitat types
include open fallow field and deciduous forest.
The early successional areas were vegetated with shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), white
oak (Quercus alba), black cherry (Prunus serotina), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), willow oak (Q. phellos), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), autumn
olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Vines in early successional
areas included muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Herbaceous vegetation observed included
toadflax (Linaria sp.), downy oat grass (Danthonia sericea), winged sumac (Rhus
copallinum), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and goldenrod (Solidago sp.).
Open fallow fields observed during field review exhibited evidence of past disturbance
and were vegetated with sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Japanese honeysuckle,
Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), and clover (Trifolium sp.).
The western side of the study corridor is adjacent to open deciduous forest along a
portion of its length. Vegetation in these adjacent deciduous forest areas included white
oak, tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweetgum in the canopy. The understory
included red oak (Q. rubra), autumn olive, and poison ivy. Ground vegetation in the
mature deciduous woods was sparse, though some Solomon's seal (Polygonatum
biflorum) was observed.
Three scrub/shrub wetlands are present within the study corridor. These wetland areas
were vegetated with red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
black willow (Salix nigra), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), tulip tree, and sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis). Japanese
honeysuckle, wingstem (Verbesina alterniflora), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
bedstraw (Galium aparine), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), soft rush
(Juncus effusus) and sedge (Carex sp.) were present in the ground layer, which was
generally densely vegetated. Representative photographs of the project corridor are
attached (Appendix III)
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
The project corridor contains three wetland areas and seven jurisdictional streams
(Approximate Waters of the U.S. Maps, Appendix II - Figures 5A through 5G). A 50-
foot wide cleared easement will be utilized for construction and permanent maintenance
of the pipeline in upland areas. In jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the construction
corridor will not exceed 40 feet. The permanently maintained corridor will be 40 feet in
wetland areas and at stream crossings; however, permanent impacts at stream crossings
will be limited to no more than 30 linear feet of riprap per crossing. The clearing and
maintenance of this corridor will result in permanent impacts to the three wetlands
because their vegetation type will be converted from scrub/shrub or forested to emergent.
Table 3 below outlines the proposed wetland impacts, while temporary and permanent
stream impacts are identified in Table 4.
4
Nationwide Permit No. 1 2/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening September 5, 2008
Table 3: Project-wide Wetland Impacts'
Wetland ID Permanent Impact2 (acre) Figure No.
A 0.016 5B
B 0.024 5C
C 0.013 5E
Total: 0.053
Calculated based on a 40-ft construction corridor and 40-foot permanently maintained corridor.
2 Permanent conversion of scrub-shrub or forested wetlands to emergent.
Permanent impacts to five jurisdictional streams are anticipated. The permanent stream
impacts are necessary due to placement of riprap below the plane of the ordinary high water
mark for stream bank stabilization at trenched crossings. Two streams will only be
temporarily impacted. Stream 3 is an intermittent channel that is within the construction
corridor but outside of the area being trenched and thus will not require riprap for
stabilization; instead, disturbed banks will be stabilized with matting and reseeding. Stream
6 has already been stabilized with riprap as part of a previous project by others. The
remaining streams will be temporarily impacted by clearing a 40-foot corridor and also
digging an approximately five-foot wide trench for the pipe during construction. Permanent
impacts will result from the placement of riprap in the channel bottom at a width not to
exceed 30 feet. Typical wetland and stream crossing details are attached (Figures 6A and
6B - Appendix B).
The pipeline will be installed using the open-cut method. This will involve digging a
trench that will be an average of five feet wide for most of the corridor length, but may
increase to 20 feet before road crossings. Joints of the pipeline will then be welded and
the pipe will be lowered into the trench. Excavated areas will be backfilled and returned
to their pre-construction contours.
Table 4: Pro'ect-wide Stream Im acts
Stream ID Stream
Type Temporary
Impact' I Permanent
Impact2 I
Figure No.
1 Perennial 10 30 5B
2 Perennial 10 30 5C
3 Intermittent 40 0 5D
4 Perennial 10 30 5E
5 Perennial 10 30 5E
6 Perennial 40 0 5F
7 Perennial 15 25 5G
Total: 135 145
Temporary disturbance due to clearing of vegetation to facilitate construction associated with crossing
(Affected streambanks will be restored to pre-construction contours once construction is completed.)
Temporary linear footage is in addition to permanent linear footage.
2Placement of riprap below OHWM in permanently-maintained corridor.
3No riprap to be placed for stabilization of the non-trenched intermittent channel; disturbed banks will be
matted and reseeded.
4Stream previously permanently impacted by riprap as part of separate NCDOT project.
Nationwide Permit No. 1 2/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening September 5. 2008
The locations of jurisdictional areas are depicted on the attached Figures 5A-5G
(Appendix H).
PROTECTED SPECIES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
S&ME forwarded scoping letters to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) on June 12, 2008. The
scoping letters included a description of the proposed work, figures detailing the location
of the project corridor, and a request for comments regarding concerns that the respective
agencies may have. On June 18, 2008, the NCNHP responded stating their records
indicated the presence of a North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
easement along an unnamed tributary west the project corridor and south of Garrison
Road (See Appendix VI). The NCNHP emphasized this easement is for water quality
and that sediment from construction would likely enter the tributary. PNG has agreed to
strict sediment and erosion control measures which will be implemented prior to pipeline
construction and will be maintained until disturbed areas have been stabilized to prevent
sediment from entering the tributary. In a July 10, 2008 letter, the USFWS stated that the
requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act have been fulfilled
(Appendix VI).
S&ME's review of potential protected terrestrial species habitat entailed a literature
review of existing records obtained from federal and state sources to identify documented
records of protected species. The USFWS list of federally protected species (updated
May 10, 2007) and the NCNHP Element Occurrence (EO) Database were consulted for a
listing of protected species documented within Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
This review identified three protected plant species and one animal. Listed fauna and
flora and their federal status are identified in Table 5. Explanations of rankings are
included at the end of the table.
Table 5: Protected Flora and Fauna Summary
Species Federal Rank" County Status Habitat
Present
Helianthus schweinitzii

Schweinitz's sunflower E Current No
Lasmigona decorata

Carolina heelsplitter E Historical No"
Echinacea laevigata

Smooth conef lower E Current No
Rhus michauxii

Michaux's sumac E Historical No
I = Threatened, E = Endangered
- A habitat assessment was not performed for this aquatic species. Project does not impact designated
Critical Habitat for this species.
Nationwide Permit No.12/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening September 5 2008
As part of the literature review, S&ME also consulted the NCNHP GIS database and
Virtual Workroom for a listing of occurrences of endangered or threatened species within
or near the project corridor. This review identified 10 EOs, none of which are federally
protected species.
On May 8, 2008, S&ME personnel conducted a field review of the study corridor. The
field review entailed a pedestrian survey of appropriate habitat to verify the presence or
absence of protected species. During field reconnaissance, S&ME personnel integrated
the information obtained from supporting documentation with field evaluation for the
presence of protected terrestrial species or their potential habitat. Portions of the study
corridor that matched descriptions of the preferred habitat for species listed in Table 5
were classified as potential habitat for protected terrestrial species.
Field review of the project corridor indicated that the area had been significantly
disturbed up to the edge of the existing tree line. This disturbance likely occurred during
construction of I-485. The early successional areas adjacent to the maintained NCDOT
easement include a number of opportunistic and/or invasive species that are not
associated with the protected terrestrial species that are known to occur in Mecklenburg
County. These three plant species are generally associated with open areas, often with
patches of exposed soil. Such conditions indicate that these protected species do not
compete well; consequently, they are not often found in areas where opportunistic,
aggressive, or invasive species, are present. Based on the level of recent disturbance and
the species composition along the existing, maintained NCDOT easement, the study
corridor was not considered to provide potential habitat for protected terrestrial species
with a likelihood of occurring in Mecklenburg County.
The proposed project crosses unnamed tributaries of Beaverdam Creek, which drains
directly into Lake Wylie. Consequently, the proposed pipeline will not impact streams
that drain to known populations of Carolina heelsplitter or its designated Critical Habitat.
No documented occurrences of Carolina heelsplitter are known for Beaverdam Creek or
its tributaries. Accordingly, the proposed project is not anticipated to impact this species
or its designated Critical Habitat.
Cultural Resources
S&ME provided a scoping letter to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) on June 12, 2008. SHPO responded with a July 21, 2008 letter stating that they
were aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. A copy of
the SHPO letter is included in Appendix VI.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
PNG has designed the proposed project to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the
U.S. to the extent practical. Clearing will be necessary along the project corridor;
however, it will not result in an easement width of greater than 50 feet in uplands, or 40
feet within wetlands.
Permanent impacts at stream crossings, resulting from the placement of riprap for bank
stabilization, have been reduced to a maximum width of 30 feet. Stream crossings were
Nationwide Permit No. 1 2/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening September 5, 2008
designed to limit impacts by crossing at a near perpendicular angle. The project as
proposed does not meet DWQ's conditions regarding near perpendicular stream crossings
at one location. This condition cannot be met because the proposed project corridor was
routed to parallel an existing maintained NCDOT right-of-way, which minimizes habitat
fragmentation.
The proposed project was routed to parallel the NCDOT right-of-way for I-485 to the
extent practical to minimize "edge effect" in sensitive wetland areas. Because the
proposed pipeline is a distribution line, it must be afforded a level of protection within a
dedicated easement that is not available within the existing maintained NCDOT right-of-
way.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
The combined width of the temporary construction corridor and the permanent easement
will not exceed 40 feet in wetlands and at stream crossings. Placement of riprap
associated with stream crossings will be restricted to the stream bottom and banks, below
the ordinary high water mark. De-stabilization of the stream bed or banks upstream or
downstream of the crossing will not result from the placement of riprap. Following
construction, the temporary stream crossing will be restored to original grade and
elevation. The proposed project should not result in permanent changes in pre-
construction elevation contours or stream dimension, pattern or profile. Excess material
will be removed to a high ground disposal area. Cleared areas will be restored with
native vegetation in accordance with the attached Restoration Plan within 30 working
days of initial land disturbance.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices outlined in the most recent version of
the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" and
approved by the local governing authority shall be in compliance with specifications
governing the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices to comply with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard.
Sediment and erosion control measures placed in waters will be removed and the original
grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources has released the
project. Impacts have been avoided and minimized, and appropriate measures will be
taken during construction to allow flow and circulation patterns of waters of the U.S. to
remain unaffected.
Permanent impacts associated with stream crossings are below the 0.5 acre threshold for
NWP No. 12. Accordingly, this PCN for NWP No. 12 is being submitted to the USACE
for approval.
MITIGATION
Based on conversations with the USACE for similar projects, we anticipate that
appropriate mitigation for the proposed project can be satisfied by the avoidance and
minimization procedures implemented during the design phase of the proposed project.
8
Nationwide Permit No.12/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening September 5. 2008
Impacts to streams and wetlands within the project corridor will be minimized by use of
the existing, maintained easement, and by reducing both the temporary construction and
permanent maintained corridor widths.
A majority of impacts resulting from the proposed project are temporary. One proposed
stream crossing is not at a near perpendicular angle because the project parallels an
existing NCDOT right-of-way, which will minimize clearing of forested areas and habitat
fragmentation. Original grades and contours will be restored in wetland areas and at
stream crossings. To restore the corridor in wetland areas and at stream crossings, PNG
will use a native seed mix, which will be distributed with placeholder species to provide
soil stabilization until the permanent seeding germinates and becomes established. This
seed mix will be comprised of species that are native to Mecklenburg County (with the
exception of the placeholder species, which will consist of annual species to reduce
competition with the native seeds). The restoration plan submitted with this PCN
outlines the seed mix and application methods (Appendix VII).
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your written
concurrence with this NWP No. 12 permit application. If we can provide additional
information or answer questions you may have, please feel free to contact us at
704.523.4726.
Sincerely,
S &ME
C4&L? A. zc'tck24'? 6'Pl ). Rem4"6--110 H
Catherine M. Luckenbaugh, C.E. Lisa J. Beckstrom, C.W.B., C.E.
Natural Resources Project Manager Natural Resources Department Manager
Senior Reviewer
Attachments
cc: Ms. Mara Sikora, PNG
CMU LJB/cml S:\1357\PROJECTS\2007\1357-08-504
9
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM - S&ME
Date: 5/27/08
Project Information
S&ME Project Name: PNG Dixie River Road Pipeline
Type of Project: Jurisdictional Delineation, Nationwide Permitting
Location: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Property Owner/Representative Information
Business Name:
Mailing Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
Piedmont Natural Gas
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, NC 28210
[phone]
Ms. Mara Sikora, P.E.
Agent Information
Business Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, N.C. 28273
704.523.4726
Catherine Luckenbaugh
Authorization: I ??n ? ?VC? on behalf of
(Contact Signature)
Wai Z3- WATIA __ US hereby authorize
(Name of Landowner Project Sponsor)
S&ME, Inc. to act as agent for the above-mentioned project.
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
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
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 12
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 Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), 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: ( 1:1
II. Applicant Information § [Eaw
1. Owner/Applicant Information S E P 1 7 2008
Name: Piedmont Natural Gas prNg -WATER QO 1 CN
Mailing Address: 4720 Piedmont Row Dr. WETLAWSAN
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone Number: 704.731.4351 Fax Number: 704.731.4375
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
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: Catherine M. Luckenbaugh, C.E.
Company Affiliation: S&ME, Inc.
Mailing Address: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte. NC 28273
Telephone Number: 704.523.4726 Fax Number: 704.525.3953
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
Page 1 of 8
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Interstate 485 (1-485),
exit at Steele Creek Road / NC-160 (exit 4). Head east on Steele Creek Road for 0.3
mile and then turn left onto Dixie River Road. Continue along Dixie River Road for
approximately 4.4 miles; the origin of the pipeline is located on a dirt access road
south of Dixie River Road prior to where it overpasses 1-485.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): See Tables 1 and 2 in cover letter.
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): Approximately 16 acres made up of a 50-foot wide easement
along 14,130 linear feet of pipeline.
7
Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Beaverdam 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: Land along the easement is made up of the scrub/schrub
edge of wooded areas with some open cleared areas. The land directly adjacent to
the easement to the east is cleared right-of-way for 1-485.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
proposed project involves the placement of approximately three miles of natural gas
pipeline on new location. The pipeline will be located within a 50-foot easement in
upland areas. Construction impacts will be limited to a maximum 40-foot corridor
Page 2 of 8
within wetlands and stream crossings. This corridor will be permanently maintained
with annual mowing following pipeline completion. Joints of the pipeline will be
welded, the pipe will be lowered into a trench, the trench will be backfilled and the
area will be returned to its original contours. Equipment to be used on the iob
includes trackhoes, dozers, trucks, sidebooms, and welding rigs.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The proposed pipeline will serve new
residential development occurring in this area, specifically The Sanctuary and The
Palisades. The new line is necessary to maintain adequate natural gas pressure and
provide service to these new communities, while continuing to maintain adequate
pressure to existing communities.
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.
None
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.
No
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Proposed impacts include
temporary placement of fill in three wetland areas and permanent conversion of
forested and scrub/shrub wetlands to emergent wetlands within the 40-foot
permanent pipeline easement (see Table 1). Five of the seven jurisdictional streams
will be permanently impacted by the placement of riprap at a width not to exceed 30
feet (see attached Table 2). One additional stream, Stream 3, is intermittent and will
Page 3 of 8
not require riprap for stabilization. Another stream (Stream 6) has previously been
filled with riprap due to projects previously completed by others. Accordingly, this
stream will be only temporarily impacted during construction. Jurisdictional areas
impacted by construction of the proposed project will be restored to original grades
and contours upon completion of the project.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland**
(indicate on ma) (acres) (es/no) (linear feet)
A Conversion 0.016 No 0 Forested and
scrub/shrub
B Conversion 0.024 No 0 Emergent and
scrub/shrub
C Conversion 0.013 No 20 Forested and
emergent
TOTAL Conversion 0.053 - - -
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. 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.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: Approximately
0.0.5.6 acre (within the 50-foot acquired easement).
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.053 acre of impacts due to construction and
conversion of wetland type for permanent maintenance corridor.
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on ma) (linear feet) Before Impact (please secif )
1 Riprap 30 UT Beaverdam 5 to 6 feet Perennial
Creek
2 Riprap 30 UT Beaverdam 5 feet Perennial
Creek
3 N/A 0 UT Beaverdam 3 feet Intermittent
Creek
4 Riprap 30 UT Beaverdam 4 to 5 feet Perennial
Creek
5 Riprap 30 UT Beaverdam 6 feet Perennial
Creek
6 N/A 0 UT Beaverdam 4 to 6 feet Perennial
Creek
7 Riprap 25 UT Beaverdam 4 feet Perennial
Creek
Page 4 of 8
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, 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.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usss.aov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tooozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: Permanent impacts to
145 If of channel (30-foot maximum width per crossing), due to placement of riprap
below the ordinary high water mark. An additional 135 If of channel will be
temporarily impacted due to disturbance and vegetation clearing during the
construction of open-cut crossings.
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. 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
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.
Avoidance and minimization measures include routing the pipeline to maximize the
proximity to existing road and Powerline rights-of-way. A majority of impacts to
wetlands and streams will be temporary, and original grades and contours will be
Page 5 of 8
restored upon completion of construction. Riprap will be used at stream crossings
where it is considered necessary and will be restricted to the area below ordinary high
water mark. Boring was not considered for the proposed stream crossings because of
the small size of the streams and the determination that impacts from setting up a bore
location would exceed those required to trench the streams.
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 March 9, 2000, 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 NCWRP 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.ht".
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.
Based on conversations with the USACE for recent similar projects, we anticipate that
appropriate mitigation for the proposed project can be satisfied by the avoidance and
minimization procedures implemented during the design phase of the proposed
project and the use of a native seed mix to restore wetland areas upon completion of
construction. Original grades and contours will be restored in wetland areas and at
stream crossings. Based on recent conversations with the USACE for a similar
protect, we have included riprap in the calculation of permanent impacts.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
Page 6 of 8
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wm/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three 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) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
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.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify: Mecklenburg County Surface
Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Buffers )?
Yes ® No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
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.
Page 7 of 8
Zone* Impact

(square feet)
Multiplier Required

Mitigation
1
2 N/A
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
No mitigation is required for utility crossings of local Mecklenburg County buffers.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both 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.
N/A
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. 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).
Ill Zt4_6 ?
Applican Agent' Signature " Date
(Agent's signature is va id only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
kph y` S- ?t F j_ , c
a? 5 +
DIXIe +
-f'x' rqJ?:_ ? '• (, ?U r ~ ...._ ?GL?p• 5 R ?- - N .?
4 ?K ? 1 ti ??.
`a t R
1 Sadler
d
Wetland A O
Stream 1
esk
..4 f ?. f Wetland B q
` Stream 2
, r
Stream 3
w 51 ,
'7f jI _
d ' 1
p , tt Fs , JDorcS'/z aeLlf r ,{
WetlandC T1'-
c ' Stream 4 rg ,
MarkSWO° i
J? 9?1
d9e?? °PS Dr
oi? Ir a „t /" ? D
0<a s f/
-.-
Stream 5 S?01V
` as I '? 9e?n f-, berry-Dr,'
Ca.Fid IF 2; Stream 6 r . =Ge
t r d [)(
,?
al ? ? ?: aro , ,
•.r s; r ,1, Sh Pt
_ °Pod
t. / ., 447 t
D, W'ndY9aQ
Sp??9h Stream 7 / A, '-
0/m
O Wetland Abutting RPW
4
® Perennial RPW - <-? 91
O Seasonal RPW
Approximate Pipeline Alignment Lei
?Ct ton RdWes wNtlems Glenn Rd
REFERENCE: USGS 1993 CHARLOTTE WEST INC] QUAD SHEET
THE ABOVE BACKGROUND INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) DEPARTMENT WEB SITE. PIPELINE ROUTE WAS OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND A 0 1,
SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR 000 2,000 {,x,3,000#•
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet/
SCALE: V = 2,000' FIGURE
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP No.
DATE: 8-12-08 - S&ME PNG Dixie River Road
DRAWN BY: S stem Stran thening
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 2
CHECKED BY: DDI I PROJECT NO:
1357-08-504
\\ . ?-r-? 4 x?kA0v t tf:?lF 411
° y d a?'`' z rid y n a ?*c ?/
of OIL,
„t .-:, V{icf +dc. vy ',. 0\r t J L k'"?i?qqq,,,fi ° ?:. r' •• a. 'Y6 ?r sfr?.,'w'krt?vq 3'4
'' • f?{ ?? .3y ? ( ! d 1 P T? ?i}A r`f 1} ?' { f?i ?°L d } . r{ .ANc ""yti
Sad/er^,Y e
1
i. 1,
5 t ?W a Y v^?r v` i).i"
Wetland A x p? w
71 '?•? ! ? r'?kc ?, ??', 4M 1r, i5, wLg,"'V. F4
o k w lylwJ M1 y„ tr?'.?s. y r ,' L'
? 1 ream 1 ? ea.
4
a • 4 r 34, ?A, r ar . ,rJ
1 S? i aR y t t rM g as
a i`?+..?w t n t
v .: .s ?` ?^•i. Stream 2 i.10
t: 3t+r Wetland B *.`
.?.C$ °; • y;# "' \ ".. t ' r. d'r'4 is4".
??y,+??, F + - mp, t iA
f ?t?? ?1 ?zp sR ryd'+"fn "?A.y?V?^,-.. f' ? ? - A*.Vn.?,? ?• '? ?-
Stream 3. • `'
4 7.
Al r
a q
O Wetland Abutting RPW ?;?
® Perennial RPW
h
O Seasonal RPW
? : rf?.
T Approximate Pipeline Alignment contlnuea on 3e
1! ' `t r
REFERENCE:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND ROAD LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ?
?DorcasLn ;rte
SYSTEMS (GIS) DEPARTMENT. STREAM LAYER WAS OBTAINED FROM THE USGS NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET (NHD).
PIPELINE ROUTE WAS OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR ? -
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO O 5OO ,OOO
GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SSME. INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS
TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
.. .. .... _ .i c.
W_ R
SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE
DATE: 8-1 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH No.
PNG Dixie River Road
DRAWN BY: DDH S&ME System Strengthening
j Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
CHECKED BY: LJB PROJECT NO: 1357-08-504

:y, ?r Dort a?Un i .
..1 ? i• h ?l`. r ^'!+.}ty Sti+^ ?+, K??i ?. * ?1 , i ? .? ,k ; g v yb 'Y ? sa:f r
xr `. Stream 4 ??,
4 w? k ! ,y4 n; a
yi?s? a z n ?, a': Wetland C Od Rd
1,• d+? A?o,
Stream 5 d?J
i
i• -: ? r ` 6ro": r .,a s'F•r 1,., li>t *?i'. i• i^•?? •\ e ', ?'S?i
?4 t...SnOW;
.,r. \ aft f4 '! O
^ A'.Y ! a\y a °".+ r ,. A i 4
r a Y a ? r.
'yq fw++p? ?,+', •••r•? ?Et?'rP„ „fit. ?'`.e ?.k y`s1.: ?t?` xt
u Ago-°4
t:°Yi ?.? 21 541. " (?n"I T '\}? Y
4 A Stream 6 T 1 ^, ! .. t Mh V h.`'
?.. +} S At
4'r v •t ? Y +c?. ^w?c ' J .A)? ., y t' >C it ?r Ai'M'
a ?. , K `?? y y? .Y ?. ' +4A '. ' . ? . id"' +ip t a .e yam, ` ?4 r' M z 4,*
- 1; 'Y.?S . +"? A?1k ? v ?, ,yy,.a'4r l?? ? ?•y.. I '°f A . r?+.'? x,?' ?• "a N,1 .`
'rr Dixie River -Rd
A S
:.
?O.QfO
1 ?K ?-; l ? a7z=A?,v r s "4 ,,•. ? yam,- , .. ° I? .t s,„, * !J.
} ? '?+ TM°""?r ° r fir' w r + ° \ r+,??v k ? F'rran
! 1CnE * a i 7 ce Or
g} ?! ,, { * A s ,x } Stream 7
O Wetland Abutting RPW # ``^
• Perennial RPW A.
O Seasonal RPW
- - Approximate Pipeline Alignment
>.
REFERENCE: ±. t
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND ROAD LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEMS (GIS) DEPARTMENT. STREAM LAYER WAS OBTAINED FROM THE USGS NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET (NHD). T \
PIPELINE ROUTE WAS OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO "? a a T 5OO p? ,OOO\\
GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS
TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
?? Feet
SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE
2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NO.
DATE: 8-12-08 S&ME
PNG Dixie River Road
DRAWN BY: DDH System Strengthening
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina B
CHECKED BY: LAB PROJECT NO: 1357-08-504
ncD 321
WkD PaF PaF Wk CeD2 N
�CeD2
S WkF
aajerG'oo HeB CeD2
Rd
�3N EnB CeD2
CeD2 CeD2 WkE VaD Wetland i.
C,
WkF CeD2 MO
PaE WkD Stream 1 CeD
CeD2 W HeB
Heb �a CeD2
CeB2 ��� WkB PaE VaD.,., eB
PaF VaD PaE Wk CeB2
WkD WkB
PaE O Stream 20�a He `Nestg�/
PaE CeD2 CeD2
CeD2 eD2 �`e
PaF PaE PaE MO
Wetland B CeB2
CeB2 PaE WkE PaF CeD2
Heb
CeD2
CeD2 WkF CeD2 6IrUm Dt�
C 2
PaE
P�g2 EnD PaE CeD2
CeD2 Stream 3
PaE
PaF CeD2 EnB PaE CeD2
/
PaE / WkF EnDPaE B EnD WkE CeD2 MO
CeD2PaE CeD2 Stream 4
PaE
CeD2 PaE
EnD eD McDWkB Dorcas Ln� CeD2
CeD2 CeDZ- CeD2 B2
Wetland C W
�eD2 DaBDaE
dRd
'CeD2
CeD2 DaD 'MarkswoO
Stream 5 Dou 9 a '/
MO
CeD2 Ce as DIE,—
CeD2
� CeD2 W�—
PaE PaF 3no�Riag3 PaEW
PaF e �n teeieberry_Dr—
CeD2 B2
CeD2 PaE CeD2
PaE
CeD2 PaE Stream 6 MO
B PaE PaF —Ge ra//d Dro
CeD2 �(
PaE - Dixie River.96 CeD2 PaE
CeB2
PaF PaE a
PaE EnD CeD2 F�� Shopton Rd—
Stream 7 anoe ,�
O Wetland Abutting RPW 0 PB3
CeD2 E DaD CeD2
O Perennial RPW
O Seasonal RPW aE CuD Cn PaEe
Me8 oz
Approximate Pipeline AlignmentEno a Da DaB 3 Dab
MeB o CeD2
REFERENCE: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET FOR MECKLENBURG COUNTY
THE ABOVE SOILS LAYER WAS OBTAINED FROM THE USDA GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY WEB SITE, PIPELINE PaE
ROUTE WAS OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE dep 1,000 2,0000 3000
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY, S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION M
MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. B Feet
MeD W O
SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE
USDA SOIL SURVEY MAP NO.
DATE: 8-12-08 - S&ME PNG Dixie River Road
DRAWN BY: DDH System Strengthening
VW1/W.SMEINC.COM Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
"NECKED BY: EJB PROJECT NO:
Illi, -1357-08-504

?\1 N ,
f sd !
,. Ra
1
•. I f?
513
a c (?
Gar<\5
of
5D_
4l 5`' =Dorcas Ln .. -
f r?? r
5E !Markswood
Ra
I
Doug ?l
las Dr
r
{ S
berry Dr
N I
!e
i Gera/d Dr
0411 Rd
--Shopton Rd-
® Map Frames -
- - Pipeline alignment a'?or
4' contour 0
20' contour 11 G??e? o
REFERENCE: ?o
THE ABOVE 2007 LIDAR CONTOUR INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT. PIPELINE ROUTE AND SURVEYED \\
DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP 0 '1,000 2,00
IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY r Fe It\
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
'ALE: AS SHOWN APPROXIMATE WATERS FIGURE
Rre: 08-13-08 S&ME OF THE U INDEX MAP NO
PNG Dixie xie River Road
tAwN BY: DDH System Strengthenin
?a W,SI?'dlElt??;,•?,0 Mecklenburg County,
PROJECT NO: 1357-08-504
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WERE DELINEATED BY S&ME IN MAY 2DOBAND SURVEYED BY A'
REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. STREAM DELINEATIONS WERE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY ALAN ' V
JOHNSON OF DWQ ON 6.12.2008. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
I
' J1 l
I
1
• 1 IWetl and A
0.016 acre permanent impact
--------- ----
1
111 (?
Stream 1 (perennial)
10 LF temporary impacts - -Pipeline alignment
30 LF permanent impacts
Extent of permanent stream impacts (30')
Extent of construction corridor/permanent
clearing within jurisdictional areas (40')
Q Project corridor (50')
0 Permanent wetland impacts
?M Permanent stream impacts (riprap)
Temporary stream impacts
...... Delineation extents
2' contours
i t 10' contours

REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE 2007 LIDAR CONTOUR INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT PIPELINE ROUTE AND SURVEYED
DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP
IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANTFOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THEREARE 0 25 50 75
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE ORANY
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet

SCALE: 1" = 50' APPROXIMATE WATERS FIGURE
DATE:
08-13-08 OF THE U.S. MAP NO.

DRAWN BY:
DDH

=?=
S&ME
t:t(1
PNG Dix Strtre River Road
System Strengthening
Mecklenbur
Count
NC
? B
-NECKED BY: LJB g
y,
PROJECT NO: 1357-08-504
)TE:JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WERE DELINEATED BY SBME IN MAY 200B AND SURVEYED BY
:GIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. STREAM DELINEATIONS WERE VER RED IN THE FIELD BYALAI
HNSON OF DWQ ON 6.12.2008. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
Stream 2 (perennial)
10 LF temporary impacts
??------ _ 30 LF pemtanant impacts

J
0
ii
• ? i
y'
r
Wetland B
0.024 acre permanent impa
N?
A?
.- s
- - Pipeline alignment
Extent of permanent stream impacts (30')
- Extent of construction corridor/permanent
/ clearing within jurisdictional areas (40')
Q Project corridor (50')
Permanent wetland impacts
/? r - _-. - --' Permanent stream impacts (riprap)
Temporary stream impacts
1
:.....; Delineation extents
2' contours
- ' 10' contours
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE 2007LIDAR CONTOUR INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT PIPELINE ROUfEAND SURVEYED
DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP
IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANTFOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THEREARE 0 25 50 75
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITSACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE ORANY
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
SCALE: 1" = 50' APPROXIMATE WATERS FIGURE
DATE:
08.13-08 OF THE U.S. MAP NO.

RAWN BY: DDH

==
&M E
PNG Dixie River Road

System Strengthening
Mecklenbur
Count
NC

5C
IiECKED BY:
LJB g
y,
\ PROJECT NO: 1oc-7 AO cnA
NOTE: JURISDICTIONALBOUNDARIES WERE DELINEATED BY SBME IN MAY 200B AND SURVEYED BY A 1
REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. STREAM DELINEATIONS WERE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY ALAN
JOHNSON OF DWOON 6.1220011 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
I
j.
Stream 3 (intermittent)
40 LF temporary impacts
No permanent impacts
(stream will not be trenched or riprapped)
%
i %
I
%
N
%
- - Pipeline alignment
Extent of construction corridor/permanent
clearing within jurisdictional areas (40')
Project corridor (50')
Permanent stream impacts (riprap) %
C? Temporary stream impacts !%
Existing riprap
.....; Delineation extents
j i
2' contours ?%
10' contours
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE 2007 LIDAR CONTOUR INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT. PIPELINE ROUTE AND SURVEYED
DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP
IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOTMEANTFORDESIGN, LEGAL, ORANYOTHER USES. THEREARE 0 25 50 A
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO RES PONSIB IU TY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY `
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON TH S INFORMATION. Feet
SCALE: 1. = 50' APPROXIMATE WATERS FIGURE
os-1&0s OF THE U.S. MAP
DATE: S&ME NO
PNG Dixie River Road 5D
DRAWN BY: DDH -== System Strengthening
WW.SMEINC.COM Mecklenburg County, NC
CHECKED BY: WB J
\ PROJECT NO: 1zr,7 no rnn
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WERE DELINEATED BY SBME IN MAY 2DO8 AND SURVEYED BY I N
REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. STREAM DELINEATIONS WERE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY ALAN 1 Y
JOHNSON OF DWO ON 6.12.2008. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
' i
Stream 4 (perennial) i i
10 LF temporary impacts
30 LF permanent impacts
I
Wetl and C
0.013 acre permanent impact
i
i
Stream 5 (perennial)
10 LF temporary impacts
30 LF permanant impacts - --
r
r - - Pipeline alignment
Extent of permanent stream impacts (30')
Extent of construction corridor/permanent
clearing within jurisdictional areas (40')
'? l Q Project Corridor (50')
Q Permanent wetland impacts
t? Permanent stream impacts (riprap)
i Temporary stream impacts
_,.. Delineation extents
2' contours
t
10' co ntou rs
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE 2007 LIDAR CONTOUR INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT. PIPELINE ROUrE AND SURVEYED
DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP
IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANTFOR DESIGN, LEGAL. OR ANY OTHER USES. THEREARE
0 25 50 75
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE ORANY
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
SCALE: 1" = 50' APPROXIMATE WATERS FIGURE
DATE: 0$_13-08 S&ME OF THE U.S. MAP "
PNst Dixie River Road 5E
DRAWN 6Y: DDH == System Strengthening
ECKEDBY: WMSMEEris?fa.GDi''ll" Mecklenburg County, NC
?`?B PROJECT NO: 1357_0$_504
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WERE DELINEATED BY SBME IN MAY 200B AND SURVEYED BY `
%
LAN
REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. STREAM DELINEATIONS WERE VERIRED IN THE FIELD B
JOHNSON OF DWO ON 6.12.2008. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
1
M
;

h
I
Stream 6 (perennial)
` 40 LF temporary impacts
No permanent impacts
(stream is already riprapped)
i

i

r
E i
/

k
- - Pipeline alignment

E Extent of permanent stream impacts (30')
, Extent of construction corridor/permanent
clearing within jurisdictional areas (40')
Project corridor (50')
Existing riprap
Temporary stream impacts
i Delineation extents
2' contours
10' contours
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE 2007 LIDAR CONTOUR INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT. PIPELINE ROUTE AND SURVEYED
DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP
IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THEREARE 0 25 50 75
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S BME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet

SCALE: 1" = 50' APPROXIMATE WATERS FIGURE
NO
DATE: 08-13-08 S&ME OF THE U.S. MAP
PNG Dixie River Road .

DRAWN BY: DDH
===
System Strengthening 5F
SME#NC D,;
°4d1iW Mecklenburg County
NC
. ,
CHECKED BY: LJB
\ PROJECT NO:
1357-08-504
i
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARES WERE DELINEATED BY SBME IN MAY 2008 AND SURVEYED BY
REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. STREAM DELINEATIONS WERE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BYALAN
JOHNSON OF DWQ ON 6.12.2008. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
1
M
1
1
M

1
i
N
M
1
Y
N
A
Stream 7 (perennial)
15 LF temporary impacts
25 LF permanant impacts
I
- - Pipeline alignment
Extent of permanent stream impacts (25'/30')
Extent of construction corridor/permanent
clearing within jurisdictional areas (40')
Project corridor (50')
Permanent stream impacts (riprap)
Temporary stream impacts
.. Delineation extents
2' contours
- 10' contours
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE 2007 LIDAR CONTOUR INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT. PIPELINE ROUTE AND SURVEYED
DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS (RLS) INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP
IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANTFOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THEREARE 0 25 50 75
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE ORANY
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
SCALE: 1" = 50' APPROXIMATE WATERS FIGURE
DATE: OF THE U.S. MAP No.
08-1°a = S&ME PNG Dixie River Road
DRAWN BY: DDH -=- System Strengthening 5
Mecklenburg County, NC
CHECKED BY: 1-113 PROJECT NO:
1357-08-504
Right of Way
Silt Fence
Bentonite Plug
Mats
Silt Fence
""""'NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL WETLAND CROSSING FlGURE NO.
oATV 8.2, .2008 _ S&ME
DRAWN BY: _ PNG Dixie River Road 6A
DDH System Strengthening
PROJECT NO: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
1357-08-504 9 Y•
Right of Way
Bentonite Plug
i

PLAN VIEW
Right of Way
Stream
Spoil Pile
Pipeline -?
Pipe Trench
Riprap
Gravel Construction 1Mats
Entrance 0 0o,,011 t% t--Silt Fence
_ Rock Silt Screen -k-4
Right of Way
PROFILE
Ordinary High
Water Mark
Riprap
Pipeline
--NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL STREAM CROSSING RGURE Na.
DATE 8.21.2008 *S&ME
WN eY: PNG Dixie River Road 6 g
DDH System Strengthening
PROJECT 1357-08-504 Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Taken by: JoL
Checked by: LJB
Date: 05.21.2008
?
1 y ,
? a`• a
? g?
Ml
M

I '4Y

F
v
F yw.
d
? .y
rt P
gy
R

6 Typical view of Wetland B facing northeast
towards Stream 1.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
*r& PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
=N44441,1100)v ME
Project No.: 1357-08-504 Photo Page 1
Typical view of project corridor facing north near
its origin south of Dixie River Road.
Second typical view of project corridor facing
2 south in open area west of 1-485.
d 7 .,,d
'ry
•y
,
t -
Y-
s

Typical view of non-jurisdictional, riprap-lined
channel facing west near Stream 3.
10 Typical view of second non jurisdictional, riprap-
lined channel.
r :::a. ?wa.tr,,?. I& '?8
11 Typical view of Wetland C facing east. 12 Typical view of Stream 5 facing west
r ... 7 ,? (downstream).
Taken by: JoL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
ME PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening
Checked by: LJB Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date: 05.21.2008 Project No.: 1357-08-504 Photo Page 2

W.._ / • Jr-. _._.. _. __. -.. _ --U _r__. _-...
n,,. 1 tk "iT? '
.at ,k 1 ?? ? a Y? p
15 Typical view of Stream 7 facing west
(downstream).
Taken by: JoL
Checked by: LJB
Date: 05.21.2008
14
ME
Typical view of Stream 6 facing downstream
(west).
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-08-504 Photo Page 3
16 Terminus of project corridor near 1-485 and
Shopton Road West.
3 Typical view of project corridor facing south in
power line easement.
REVIEW AREA 1
(Stream 1 and Wetland A)
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STREAM I AND WETLAND A
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: CHARLOTTE
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.1963° N, Long. 80.9695° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT TO BEAVERDAM CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: LAKE WYLIE (CATAWBA RIVER)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
Z Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
F3 Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
El Relatively permanent waters2 (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: 60 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.01 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION ID: 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 IH.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section ULDA.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section 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: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
n Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
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):
0 Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
?
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: CHARLOTTE WEST, NC, 1993.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET.
? 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): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN 05.20.08.
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: SEE ATTACHED INFORMATION.
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:
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: SEE ATTACHED STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS.
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: 60 linear feet 5 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet 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.
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.
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:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
'See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
" Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
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:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 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: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
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 (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List 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. List 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 List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
REVIEW AREA 2
(Stream 2 and Wetland B)
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STREAM 2 AND WETLAND B
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: CHARLOTTE
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.1923° N, Long. 80.9715° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT TO BEAVERDAM CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: LAKE WYLIE (CATAWBA RIVER)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):'
TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (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: 60 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.01 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):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.
Z 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 III.A.1 and 2
and Section M.D.I.; otherwise, see Section HIM below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: )rick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? 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: CHARLOTTE WEST, NC, 1993.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET.
? 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): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN 05.20.08.
? 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: SEE ATTACHED INFORMATION.
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:
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: SEE ATTACHED STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS.
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: 60 linear feet 5 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWse that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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: WETLAND A OBSERVED ABUTTING STREAM 1 OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT
CORRIDOR DURING JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.01 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters!
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
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):1o
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.
n which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
"See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
" Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El 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:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 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: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
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 (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List 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 List 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 List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
REVIEW AREA 3
(Stream 3)
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STREAM 3
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: CHARLOTTE
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.1880° N, Long. 80.9705° X.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT TO BEAVERDAM CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: LAKE WYLIE (CATAWBA RIVER)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
® Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (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: 60 linear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):;
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IH 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 HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody' is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section IH.B.1 for
the tributary, Section IH.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 IH.C below.
Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 40 acres
Drainage area: 10 acres
Average annual rainfall: 30 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6.4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 2-5 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1(or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 1-2 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1.(orless) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
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: CHARLOTTE WEST, NC, 1993.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET.
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): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN 05.20.08.
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: SEE ATTACHED INFORMATION.
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 now
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT "PLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (11), 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: SEE ATTACHED STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS.
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: 60 linear feet 5 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: WETLAND B OBSERVED ABUTTING STREAM 2 DURING JURISDICTIONAL
DELINEATION.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.01 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
0 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.
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):to
? 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:
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
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:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 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: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pitktist. 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 Pick List 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 List 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 List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
REVIEW AREA 4
(Streams 4 and 5 and Wetland C)
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STREAM 4, STREAM 5, AND WETLAND C
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: CHARLOTTE
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.18150 N, Long. 80.970° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT TO BEAVERDAM CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: LAKE WYLIE (CATAWBA RIVER)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (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: 120 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.10 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):;
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below,
Z 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 M A.1 and Section M.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections M A.1 and
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section HI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section M.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section M.B.1 for
the tributary, Section IH.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HI.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section M.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
"Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West-
' 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.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
EJ Tributary waters: 60 linear feet 3 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
[] Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
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
? 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):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
RSee Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.13.6 of the instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Z Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Z 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: CHARLOTTE WEST, NC, 1993.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMANIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN 05.20.08.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMN ENTS TO SUPPORT JD: SEE ATTACHED INFORMATION.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): >50 FT FORESTED CORRIDOR.
? 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: CONTAINS HABITAT TO SUPPORT AQUATIC LIFE FOUND IN
SEASONAL STREAMS.
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: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
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 (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List 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 List 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 List
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
TNW s, 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:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
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: SEE ATTACHED STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS.
Identify flow route to TNW5: STREAM 3 JOINS ANOTHER FIRST ORDER TRIBUTARY THEN FLOWS INTO
BEAVERDAM CREEK, WHICH FLOWS INTO LAKE WYLIE, AN IMPOUNDMENT OF A TNW (CATAWBA
RIVER).
Tributary stream order, if known: 1.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: MAY HAVE BEEN ALTERED BY NEARBY RIPRAP.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 2 feet
Average side slopes: 2i1f.
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: LARGELY STABLE WITH AN
ERODING HEADCUT.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: ABSENT.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: LIKELY FLOWS DURING WET SEASON AND FOLLOWING RAIN EVENTS.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
® changes in the character of soil
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
? water staining
? other (list):
El 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):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
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.
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.
'A 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.
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: NO WATER PRESENT, ASSUMED CLEAR.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
REVIEW AREA 5
(Stream 6)
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 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STREAM 6
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: CHARLOTTE
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.1781 ° N Long. 80.9714° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT TO BEAVERDAM CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: LAKE WYLIE (CATAWBA RIVER)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
Z Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
ED Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (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: 60 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):;
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 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 M: 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.AJ 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 M.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 IH.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? 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: CHARLOTTE WEST, NC, 1993.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET.
? 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): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN 05.20.08.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMEENTS TO SUPPORT JD: SEE ATTACHED INFORMATION.
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:
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: SEE ATTACHED STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS.
? 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: 60 linear feet 5 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet 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: WETLAND C OBSERVED DIRECTLY ABUTTING STREAM 4 DURING
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.10 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.
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):to
? 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:
'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 Rapanos.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume: _
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 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: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List 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 List 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 List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
REVIEW AREA 6
(Stream 7)
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STREAM 7
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: CHARLOTTE
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.1709° ITT, Long. 80.9670° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT TO BEAVERDAM CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: LAKE WYLIE (CATAWBA RIVER)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
® Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RIIA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
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: 60 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z 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 Ill: 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 IH.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 IH.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 Ropanos 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 now,
skip to Section HI.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? 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: CHARLOTTE WEST, NC, 1993.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET.
? 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): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN 05.20.08.
? 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: SEE ATTACHED INFORMATION.
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:
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):
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: SEE ATTACHED STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS.
? 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: 60 linear feet 5 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet 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.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.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):to
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? 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:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 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: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List 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 List 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 List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5/12/2008 Project PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Latitude: 35-19631'N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 1 Longitude: 80.96953-W
Total Points
Stream is at least intermittent 39.5
if 219 or perennial if t 30 County: Mecklenburg Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 20.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
I a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2
of texture or stream su stra a sorting 3
c ive re is oo pain 2
eposi ions ars or enc es 2
rai e c anne 0
Recent alluvial deposits 3
a. a ura evees 0
ea cuts 0
11. ra a controls
1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater order on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
R I-Iwrirnlnnw Miihtntal= Q R 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1
18. rganlC a rIS Ines Or pl eS raC Ines 0.5
19. y ric soils re oximorp is ea ureS present'! Yes = 1.5
r.. Rinlnnv (subtotal = A S )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3
22. Crayfish
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0
25. Amphibians 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 0
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
b. 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:
Observed caddisfly larvae, Calopteryx, and larval
salamanders.
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
im STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Piedmont Natural Gas 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/12/2008 4. Time of Evaluation:12:24:15pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 1 6. River basin: Upper Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 100 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.19631°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.96953°W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
West of 1-485 between the northern Dixie River Road crossing and the Garrison Road crossing.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: windy, some rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: No
0 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 85 % Forested 0 % Cleared/Logged 15 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 5-6' 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 24
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (24%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction 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 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 the 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): 54 Comments: Observed caddisfly larvae, Calopteryx, and larval salamanders.
Evaluators Signature: Date: 5/12/2008
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 Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POINT RANGE
SCORE ;
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

t Presence of flotit ! persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
' 0-5
o-s
v-s
3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
04 '
0-5
3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
s Groundwater discharge

"
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
d (
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment/ floodplain access
p
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
A-+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max
oints)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0 l
0-_

2
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)

9 Channel sinuosity
0-?
04 r
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
p
)
0-5
0 4
0 4
1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max
oints

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
' NA* 04 0-5 3
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes= max
points)
1.. Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 2
r+ (deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
?".
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5;
0-5
2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks= max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0 4 0-5 3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
con 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5
'
.
04 0-5 3
substantial impact =0; no evidence= max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
p 0-3 0-5
, 0-6 2
(no riffles/ri
les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6
' 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
F
is Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5 4
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
10 Substrate embeddedness *
NA 0-4 0 4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max

?0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
> (no evidence =0; common, numerous types = max points)
O Z? Presence of fish
` 0-4 0 t 0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous tv pes = max
points)

0-0
c2
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 54
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5/12/2008 Project PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Latitude: 35.19232°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 2 Longitude: 80.97152-W
Total Points 39
Stream is at least intermittent
if t 19 or perennial if a 30 County: Mecklenburg Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 20 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3
Active/relic oo pain 2
Depositional bars or benches 3
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 2
a. Natural levees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. ra a controls 0.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater or er on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 11 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1
18. Organic debris lines or pies (Wrack lines) 1
19. y ric soils re oximorp is features) present? Yes =1.5
C. Bloloav (Subtotal = 8 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2
22. Crayfish 0
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 1
25. Amphibians 0
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1
28. Iron bacteria/fungus 0
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
b. 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:
:.addisfly larvae observed.
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
AM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AQ0
M STRE
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Piedmont Natural Gas
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/12/2008
5. Name of stream: Stream 2
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
45 acres
50 feet
2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
4. Time of Evaluation:01:36:22pm
6. River basin: UDDer Catawba
8. Stream order: 1
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.19232°N
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet
11. Subdivision name (if any;
Longitude (ex. - 77.55661)
? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS
80.97152°W
Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
West of 1-485 between the northern Dixie River Road crossing and the Garrison Road crossing.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: windy, some rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
0 % Residential 10 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 5 % Forested 85 % Cleared/Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width: 5' 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (2-4%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction 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 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 the 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): 59 Comments: Caddisfly larvae observed.
Evaluators Signature: Date: 5/12/2008
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 Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POINT RANGE "
SCORE
_ Coastal ° Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0
5 04 3
(no flow or saturation = 0;, strop flow = max p points) - 0-5
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0
5
5
3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) - 0-
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous,, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0 4 0-5 3

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical' discharges
0
0 4
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) ` > 0-4
..a 5 Groundwater discharge
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0 4 0-4 2
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0-4 04 0-2 2
x Entrenchment / tloodplain access

PLO

(deeply entrenched= 0; frequent flooding = max points)

0-5

04 n-2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands= 0; large adjacent wetlands =?max points 0
-6
0 4
0-2 3

9 Channel sinuosity

(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 04 0-3 2
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 04 2
(extensive deposition= 0;-littleor no sediment= max points)

F Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
,I (line, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 .. Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
04
0-5
2
>+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
n-s
0-5
3
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

l4 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-1
0-5
3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout= max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) U
-?
0-4
0-5 3
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6 3
no riffles/riles or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

F?
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
F"
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

0-5

0-5

0-5 4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints

19 Substrate embeddedness
`
NA*
04
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure
= max
70 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
, 0-4 0-5 0

-?
2
(no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max oints
>? 21 Presence of amphibians 04 04 0-4 2
(J (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max pints)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 59
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5/12/2008 Project PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Latitude: 35.18809°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 3 Longitude: 80.97051 °W
Total Points 23.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if 219 or perennial if 2 30 County: Mecklenburg Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 14.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2
Active/relic oo p aln
Depositional ars or benches 0
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 2
a. aura levees 0
10. Head cuts
11. Grade controls 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater order on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-mane ancnes are not rates; see alscusslons in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 6 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1
18. Organic debris lines or piles rac Ines 1
19. y nc soils re oxlmorp is features) present! Yes = 1.5
C. Bloloav (Subtotal = 3 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2
22. Crayfish 0
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0
25. Amphibians 0
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 0
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
V. nuns cV anU L I locus on the presence or upiano plants. Item za rocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)

``?? STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Piedmont Natural Gas 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/12/2008 4. Time of Evaluation:02:41:42pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 3 6. River basin: Upper Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 10 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.18809°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.97051°W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
West of 1-485 between the southern Dixie River Road crossing and the Garrison Road crossing.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: windy, some rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
0 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 80 % Forested 0 % Cleared/Logged 20 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 3' 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (24%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction 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 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 the 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): 35 Comments:
Evaluators Signature: Date: 5/12/2008
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 Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POINT RANGE SCORE
#
? CHARACTERISTICS
I I
Coastal- Piedmont lYlountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 4
0-5
0
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration

'
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
extensive

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0 4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0 4
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge
p 0-3 04 04 1
s, wetlands, etc_ = max points)
(no discharge = 0; springs, see

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 4
0-2
Z
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood` lain = max points)
Entrenchment 1 floodplain access
'
0-5
0 4
0-2
1
max points)
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding =
Presence of adjacent wetlands
p
j
0-6
0 4
0-2
1
oints
acent wetlands= max
(no wetlands= 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0 4 0-3 Z
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max' points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04 2
"extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment- wax points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate,
VA
0 4
0-5
1
fine, homogenous= 0; large, diverse sizes= max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening"
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
>1 (de 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank' failures

`
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
a points)
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max

d
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
04
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5 2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

i 7 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
d = 0; frequent, varied habitats= max points)
little or no habitat
Fr
1 g .
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
A-5 3
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous: canopy -- max points)
x 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 011 0 4 Z
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max

0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)'

`j
0-4
0-5
` 0-5
O
oints)
(no evidence= 0; common numerous types = max
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 04 04 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22 Presence of fish
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5'
3
(no evidence 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 35
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5/12/2008 Project PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Latitude: 35.18158°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 4 Longitude: 80.97003-W
Total Points 42.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30 County: Mecklenburg Other
Name:
e.g. Quad
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 19.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2
Active/relic oo p aln 1
Depositional bars or benches 2
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 2
a. Natural levees 0
10. Head cuts o
11. Grade controls 0.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1
13. Second or greater order on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
a. man-maae ancnes are not ratea: see alscusslons in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 12
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.5
18. organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.5
19. y ric soils (redoximorphic features) present'? Yes 1.5
C. Bloloav (Subtotal = 11 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2
22. Crayfish 0
23. Bivalves o
24. Fish p
25. Amphibians 0.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 3
28. Iron bacteria/fun us o
29b. Wetland plants in streambed OBL = 1.5
U. IlCfn5 zu anu z i rocus on the presence or uplana plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -41 1011
Ml]
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Piedmont Natural Gas
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/12/2008
230 acres
5. Name of stream: Stream 4
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
80 feet
2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
4. Time of Evaluabon:04:12:28pm
6. River basin: Upper Catawba
8. Stream order: 2
10. County: Mecklenburg
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.18158°N
11. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.97003°W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
West of 1-485 between the southern Dixie River Road crossing and the Garrison Road crossing.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: windy, some rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
10 % Residential 10 % Commercial 10 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Forested 0 % Cleared/Logged 20 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 4-5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X
23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 24
Gentle (2-4%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction 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 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 the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 49 Comments:
Evaluators Signature:---...._ Date: 5/12/2008
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 Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal. Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration= max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0 4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0-1
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 1
0 4
2
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
04
0-2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood' lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
CL (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) ,
Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0 4
0 `
3
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0 1
0-3
3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander - max points)

10 Sediment input
'
0-5
0 1
0 4
?
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

1 l Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0 4
0-5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

1 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable' banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 4
0-5
3
F no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5 2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

1 C Presence of riffle-pool ripple-pool complexes
p
0-3
' 0-5
0-6 2
no riffles/riles or
pools =_0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0;,frequent, varied habitats = max points)
F
1S Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
0.1 no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
Q
x
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
> 21 Presence of amphibians
p 04 04 0-4 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max
points)
O
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0 4 0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence _ max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 49
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5/20/2008 Project PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Latitude: 35.18093°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 5 Longitude: 80.96985-W
Total Points 43
Stream is at least intermittent
if 219 or perennial if 2 30 County: Mecklenburg Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 23 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3
Active/relic oo p aln 3
epos) Iona bars or benches 3
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 3
a. aura evees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls 0.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater or er on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 10
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5
19. y ric soils re oxlmorp Ic features) present? Yes =1.5
C. Biologv (Subtotal = 10
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2
22. Crayfish 0
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 3
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 0
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
b. 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:
Observed creek chub and Hydropsychidae.
FUSACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Piedmont Natural Gas
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/20/2008
5. Name of stream: Stream 5
2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
4. Time of Evaluation:10:02:32am
7. Approximate drainage area: 110 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees
6. River basin:UDDer Catawba
8. Stream order: 1
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.18093°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661)
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS
80.96985°W
Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
West of 1-485 between the southern Dixie River Road crossing and the Garrison Road crossing.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: light rain 2 days prior
16. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area: 2 acres
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
21. Estimated watershed land use:
22. Bankfull width: 6'
10 % Residential 20
60 % Forested 0
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X G
% Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
Cleared/Logged 10 % Other
23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5'
ntle (24%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction 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 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 the 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): 48 Comments: Observed creek chub and Hydropsychidae.
Evaluators Signature: Date:
5l20/200i
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 Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS S
CORE
Coastal' Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

`
o-s
o-4
0-5
3
(no flow or saturation = d; strong
flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5`
2
(extensive alteration= 0`no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0 4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0 4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 4
0-4
2
(no discharge = 0; springs, see p s, wetlands, etc. = max points)

b Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 4
0-
3
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) ?

? Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-?
1
P,
(deeply entrenched - 0; frequent flooding = max points)

$ Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 4
0-
2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0 4
0-3
3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input;
` 0-5 04 0-4 2
(extensive de o? lion= 0; little or no sediment = max
points)

1 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 04 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes =' max points)

I? Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
1
(de 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5 1
severe erosion 0; no erosion, stable banks= max points)

14 Root depth and, density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max' points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
p 0-5 04 0-5 2
oints
(Substantial imp act =0; no evidence -'max
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
(no riffleshi les or pools = 0; well-developed = ,max points)

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
little or no habitat - 0; fre uent, varied habitats= max points)
F-
--?
18 Canopy coverage over"streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
im

01l

0-d

2
(dee )l -embedded= 0; loose structure = max

2a Presence of stream invertebrates (seepage 4)
04
o-s
o-?
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians

"
, 04
04
0-4
2
? no evidence - 0; common numerous types = max points)
O
2` Presence of fish
0-4
0 4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0: common, numerous types = max points)

-
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence- max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 48
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5/20/2008 Project PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Latitude: 35.17544°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 6 Longitude: 80.97026-W
Total Points 4? .7rJ
Stream is at least intermittent
if Z 19 or perennial if a 30 County: Mecklenburg Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 20.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3
Active/relic oo p aln 2
Depositional bars or benches
Braided channel
8. Recent alluvial deposits 3
a. Natural evees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater order on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 11.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.5
19. y nc soils re oxlmorp Ic features) present? Yes = 1.5
C. Bloloav (Subtotal = 9.75 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 1
22. Crayfish 1
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0
25. Amphibians 0.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 2
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75
b. Items zu and z7 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:
Observed Brachycentridae, Dyticidae.
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
71 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
f??
-Ap
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Piedmont Natural Gas 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/20/2008 4. Time of Evaluation:10:36:10am
5. Name of stream: Stream 6 6. River basin: Upper Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 30 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.17544°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.97026°W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
West of 1-485 between the southern Dixie River Road crossing and the Garrison Road crossing.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: light rain 2 days prior
16. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed ([-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
15 % Residential 15 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 60 % Forested 0 % Cleared/Logged 10 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 44 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 34
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (2-4%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction 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 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 the 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): 43 Comments: Observed Brachycentridae, Dyticidae.
Evaluators Signature: Date:
5/20/200i
4? - Z_ -
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 Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone
0
6

0 4

0

2
no buffer - 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
5 (no discharge= 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 D 4 0-? 2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0
0-?
1
p6 (deeply entrenched =`0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands;
`
j
0-6
0 4
0-
1
acent wetlands =
max points)
(nu wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)`
10 Sediment input
0-5°
0 4
0-4
1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment= max points)
11 Size &'diversity of channel bed substrate's NA* 0-4 0-5 3
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 2
(deeply incised = 0;'stable 'bed & banks = max points)

~+
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Q 14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
04
0-5
1
no visible roots = 0;' dense roots throughout = max points)

5 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5 2
1 substantial impact =0; no evidence= max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
p 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
ed = max points)
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-develo
17 Habitat complexity 0
-6
0-6
0-6
2
little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats max points)
H
1 Canopy coverage over streambed

y
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
W = max points)
(no shading ve 'etation = 0; continuous canopy
19 Substrate embeddedness, NA* 04 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 5
0-5
2
20 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
21 Presence of amphibians
'
' 04 0-4 0-4 1
= max
points)
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es
Q 2?- Presence of fish 0-4 0 4 0-4 1
-? (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use

0-6

0-5

0-5

2
no evidence = 0;' abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 43
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5/20/2008 Project PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Latitude: 35.1684°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 7 Longitude: 80.96872-W
Total Points
Stream is at least intermittent 36.5
if z 19 or perennial if 2 30 County: Mecklenburg Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 18 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3
Active/relic oo p aln 1
Depositional bars or benches 3
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 3
a. Natural levees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls
12. Natural valley or drainageway
-
der on existing
13. Second or greater or
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal = 10.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1
18. Organic debris lines or piles rac Ines
' 1.5
19. y ric soils re oximorp is features) presen . Yes
= 1.5
C. Blologv (Subtotal = 8 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3
22. Crayfish 0
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0
25. Amphibians 0
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
b. 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:
Stream may have been channelized.
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -Alap
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Piedmont Natural Gas
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/20/2008
55 acres
5. Name of stream: Stream 7
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
100 feet
2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
4. Time of EvaluationA 1:10:08am
6. River basin: UDDer Catawba
8. Stream order: 1
10. County: Mecklenburg
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.1684°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.96872°W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
West of 1-485 between the southern Dixie River Road crossing and the Steele Creek Road crossing.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: light rain 2 days prior
16. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES
20 % Residential 0
21. Estimated watershed land use: 70 % Forested 0
22. Bankfull width: 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
% Cleared/Logged 10 % Other
23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 2'
Flat (0-2%) Gentle (2-4%) X Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: X Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction 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 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 the 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): 42 Comments: Stream may have been channelized.
Evaluators Signature: Date: 5/20/2008
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 Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POINT' RANGE
SCORE '
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain '
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 ' 0-5 2
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence, of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 4 ,
0-?
a (deep] entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 2
acent wetlands = max points
(no wetlands = 0; large ad _
y' Channel sinuosity
0-5 .
0-4
0-3
1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
`
0-5
0 4
0 4
extensive deposition=0; little or no sediment = max points)
1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 04 0-5 1
(tine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

`
0-5
04
0-5
2
yi 1 incised= 0; stable bed & banks= max points)
(de

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion; stable banks= max oints

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
04
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
5
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
04
0-5
2
substantial impact =0 no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
(no riffles/riles or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) -

1 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
x 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0 4
(deeply embedded= 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 4
0-S
0-S
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types - max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 04 04 04 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish' 04 04 04 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
'
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
max points)
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence=
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 42
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Date: 5/12/2008
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler, P.W.S. / D. David Homans) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No? Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No© Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: A
Lat:35.196490N Lon: 80.96951°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I Acer rubrum T FAC 9.
2. _Liriodendron tu&jfera T FA 10.
3 Toxicodendron radicans H FAC 11.
4. Vids rotundifolia H FAC 12.
5 Lieustrum sinense S/S FAC 13.
6. Juncus effusus H FA + 14.
7. - Carninus caroliniana T FA 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 7 / 7 = 100
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
[ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
[ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 7, (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Series and Phase):
Field Observations ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-2 A 7.5YR 3/2 5yr 5/8 many, distinct fine sand loam
2-6 B1 7.5YR 5/2 7.5 yr 4/6 many, distinct clay loam
6-12+ B2 7.5YR 6/2 7.5 yr 4/6 many, distinct sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? 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
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No[:]
Hydric Soils Present? Yesa No[:] Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes?X No?
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No[:]
Remarks: Data point is located in a wetland.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Date: 5/12/2008
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler, P.W.S. / D. David Homans) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes[S] No? Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No© Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes[-] No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: A
Lat:35.19644°N Lon: 80.96942°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ep cies Stratum Indicator
I Liauidambar stvraciflua T FAC+ 9.
2. Ca&pinus caroliniana T F AC 10.
3. Junioerus virginiana T FACU- 11.
4. Parthenocissus auinauefolia H FAC 12.
5. SolidaQo so. H 13.
6. Elaeaenus aneusfifolia S/S FA 14.
7• Fraearia virLdniana H FA C- 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 4 / 6 = 67
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
E3- Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is absent.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Series and Phase):
Field Observations El El
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Mansell Moist) Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-4 A 5YR 3/4 none fine sand loam
4-12+ B 5YR 4/6 none fine sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? 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
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is not hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® Non
Hydric Soils Present? Yes? No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes[:] Non
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes? No®
Remarks: Data point is not located in a wetland.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Date: 5/12/2008
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler, P.W.S. / D. David Homans) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes[S] No? Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No E] Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes[:] No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: B
Lat:35.19221°N Lon: 80.97139°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I Liriodendron tulinifera S/S FAC 9.
2. _Juncus effusus H FA W+ 10.
3. Microstegium vimineum H FAC+ 11.
4. Carex lunuliformis H OBL 12.
5. Rumex sn. H 13.
6. Sisvrinchium sn. H 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 4 / 4 - 100
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
M Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
® Drift Lines
Field Observations: ® Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Series and Phase):
Field Observations El 1:1
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-12+ A 7.5YR 6/2 5yr 4/4 and 6/8 many, distinct sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? 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
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No[:]
Hydric Soils Present? Yes[ No[:] Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes?X No[:]
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No?
Remarks: Wetland is emergent and scrub/shrub except for one sweetgum tree.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Date: 5/12/2008
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler, P.W.S. / D. David Homans) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No? Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No0 Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: B
Lat:35.19205°N Lon: 80.97145°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 ElaeaQnus anvustifolia S/S FAC 9.
2. Quercus rubra T FA 10.
3. Carva elabra T FACU 11.
4• Liauidambar stvraciflua T FAC+ 12.
5 Acer rubrum T FAC 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 3 / 5 = 60
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is absent.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Series and Phase):
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T,ypic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture, Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc-
0-4 A 7.5YR 3/3 none sand loam
4-12+ B 7.5YR 4/4 none sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? 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
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is not hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No[:]
Hydric Soils Present? Yes? No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes? No?X
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes? No®
Remarks: Data point is not located in a wetland.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Date: 5/12/2008
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler, P.W.S. / D. David Homans) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No? Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No El Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: C
Lat:35.18149°N Lon: 80.96996°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I • Salix nipra S/S OBL 9. _Galium sn. H -
2. Juncus e jfusus H FA W+ 10.
3. Carex lurida H OBL 11.
4. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 12.
5• LiauidambarstvraciRua T FAC+ 13.
6. Sambucus canadensis S/S FA W- 14.
7• Lonicera ianonica H FA C- 15.
8• Fraxinus nennsvlvanica T FA 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 7 / 8 . 88
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
EJ- Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ® Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
Ed Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) @ Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Monacan loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Eutrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture, Concretions,
Inches Horizon LMunsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-5 A 5YR 5/6 none clay
5-11 131 10YR 5/3 none sand
11-12+ B2 10YR 5/1 5yr 5/6 few, distinct sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? 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
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No?
Hydric Soils Present? YesW No[] Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes?X No[]
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No?
Remarks: Data point is located in a wetland.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Date: 5/12/2008
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler, P.W.S. / D. David Homans) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes[K] No? Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No El Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: C
Lat:35.18163°N Lon: 80.97°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 • Populus deltoides T FAC+ 9.
2. Festuca sp. H 10.
3• Lonicera ianonica H FAC- 11.
4. Eunatorium canillifolium H FACU 12.
5. Rhus Qlabra S/S UPL 13.
6• Celtis occidentalis T A 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 1 / 5 = 20
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is not dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is absent.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Monacan loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
-
Field Observations
0 17
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Eutrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture, Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-12+ A 5YR 4/6 5yr 4/3 many, distinct sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? 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
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is not hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes? No®
Hydric Soils Present? Yes? Nog Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes[:] No?X
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes? No®
Remarks: Data point is not located in a wetland.
rr?rra
16
A10*1
F4CD84R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
June 18, 2008
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross. Jr., Secretary
Ms. Crystal J. Fox
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd;
Charlotte, NC 28273-5560
Subject: PNG - Dixie River Road Pipeline, Mecklenburg County
S&ME Project No. 1357-08-504
Dear Ms. )~ox:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
Significant natural heritage areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. However, our data layer
indicates that there is an N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) easement lying along an unnamed
creek in the project area (see enclosed map -easement in green). The proposed pipeline might just skirt
the upper end of the easement. However, as the creek waters flow from I-485 westward, sediment from
pipeline construction would likely enter this creek, and the easement's purpose is to protect water quality
in the stream and the wetlands and uplands that buffer the stream. Thus, it is important that proper
sedimentation controls be ;in place during construction.of the pipeline-
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at wwwncnhp.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 new 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" for more information.
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 die NHP workroom or waiting for the Info nation Request to be answered by
NJ-1P staff For more information about data formats and access, visit <www nconemaR.com>, then click
on " 1~TP Data Download", and then "nheo,zip" [to the right of "Natural Heritage Element Occurrences"].
You may also e-mail NC OneMap at <dataa(-)ncmail.net> for more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand; Jr.., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 N6&We Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 ? Carohna
Phones 919-733-4984t FAX. [phone],601 Internet: wwwAnr.state.nc ust NRI
An Equal 0* tun#y) Afflnna ve Actfton Ertpiloyer 50 % Recyded % i o % Post consumer Pape
?,? ,:
w .?: _-tea
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 29801
July l0, 2008
Ms. Crystal J. Fox
Ms. Lisa J. Beckstrom
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte; North Carolina 28273-5560
Dear Ms. Fok and Ms. Beckstrom:
Subject: Species Assessment, PNG Dixie' River Road Gas Pipeline, Adjacent to Interstate 485
South, West of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (S&ME Project
No..1357-08-504)
In your letter dated June 12, 2008, you requested our comments'on the subject project. The
following comments are based on our review of the information that you presented and are in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered -Species Act of 1973, as amended,(16 Ii.S.C. 1531-1543)
(Act).
Your client, Piedmont Natural Gas, is applying for a Section 404 permit for impacts associated with
the installation of about 3 miles of 10-inch gas pipeline. The pipeline will cross multiple urir?amed;
tributaries to Beaverdarn Creek. No information was provided as to the method proposed for the
stream crossings.
Endangered Species - According to our records and a review of the information provided, no listed
species or their habitats occur on the site. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of
.the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined
that may be affected by the identified action:
Wetland/Stream Protection and Erosion Control- We are concerned with the stream-crossings
that are being proposed for this project. We assume, because a Section 404 permit is required, that
your client is proposing an open-cut/trench method for the streams. crossings. From our past
experiences with similar projects, we believe this .technique increases the likelihood' of future lateral
movement of1the stream (which could undercut or erode around the gas pipeline), and the correction
of these problems could result in additional future maintenance and impacts to the stream, Just this
year, we have reviewed several projects where PNG is conducting (and financing) streami-bank
stabilization activities 'because of past pipeline projects where open-cut/trenching was used for
stream crossings. Therefore, we recommend the use of directional boring under the stream to prevent
stream impacts, and we recommend that vegetated riparian buffers (a minimum of 100 feet wide on
perennial streams and 50 feet wide on intermittent streams) be restored and preserved. Directional
boring under streams significantly minimizes impacts to aquatic resources, and forested riparian
buffers serve as filters for contaminants, lessen storm-water velocities, provide thermal cover, and
protect stream-bank stability. If this method cannot.be used and trenching is determined to be the.
only viable option, we recommend the development of a stream-bank monitoring and maintenance
program that would allow for the prompt stabilization of stream banks near the pipeline crossing
(should any stream-bank erosion or destabilization occur) throughout the life of this project.
We strongly recommend that stringent measures to control erosion be implemented prior to any
ground disturbance and that these measures be maintained throughout project construction. Any
disturbed areas should be reseeded with seed' mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife. Fescue-based
mixtures should be avoided.. Native annual small grains appropriate for the season are preferred and
,recommended, Biodegradable erasion-control matting should be used in conjunction with
appropriate seeding on disturbed soils in steep slope and riparian areas. Matting should be secured in
place with staples, stakes, or live stapes of native trams (whenever possible). The vegetation should.
be monitored, and subsequent plantings should be installed when needed. Fertilizers and pesticides
should not be used near streams.
We also recommend that construction equipment be kept out of the stream by operating from the,
banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance:to woody vegetation. Equipment should be inspected
daily and should be maintained to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants, and other toxic materials`
should be stored outside the riparian management area of the stream, in a location where the material
can be contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids, cooling system liquids,
and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can beof assistance or if you have,
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3939,
Ext. 240. In any future eotrespondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number
.4-2-0&232.
SInc ely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 21, 2008
Crystal Fox
S&ME .
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273-5560
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: PNG Dixie River Road Pipeline, S&ME # 1357-08-504, Mecklenburg County, ER 08-1493
Dear Ms. Fox:
Thank you for your letter of June 12, 2008, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Illy 01,
Peter Sandbeck
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
RESTORATION PLAN
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
The following Restoration Plan has been prepared for the Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG)
Dixie River Road System Strengthening project in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
While a majority of mitigation for the proposed project has been accomplished through
avoidance and minimization of impacts (i.e. - paralleling an existing, maintained
easement), the following plan shall be implemented to restore those portions of the
temporary work space easement (TWS) that are located in wetlands or streams and
temporarily-impacted to facilitate installation of the new pipeline.
This plan entails restoration of temporarily-disturbed wetland areas to their original
contours and conditions to the degree practicable upon project completion. Further,
disturbed wetland and upland areas will be permanently stabilized with a native
vegetative cover. Measures outlined in the Restoration Activities section of this plan will
be specified in the contract documents prepared for construction of the proposed project.
Restoration Activities
Proposed restoration activities will include the removal of placed fill material and
restoration of bank slopes to original pre-disturbance contours. Excavated material shall
be returned to the trench to the extent possible, and remaining material relocated and
retained on an upland site. Substrate containing roots, rhizomes, seeds, etc., will be kept
viable and replaced at the surface of the excavated site. A native, restoration seed mix
will be utilized within portions of the corridor comprised of wetlands. This seed mix
(Table 1) will be installed with a temporary groundcover species to provide short-term
coverage of disturbed soil, and will cover the disturbed wetlands and stream banks from
the jurisdictional boundary extending 10 feet landward.
Table 1: Seed Mix for Wetland/Stream Restoration*
Common Name Scientific Name Percentage of Mix
Annual rye grain Secale cereale 25
Black-eye Susan Rudbeckia hirta 10
Foxtail millet Setaria italica 20
Korean lespedeza Lespedeza stipulacea 15
Partridge pea Chamaecrista fasciculata 10
Plains coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria 5
Slender smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium 5
Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus 5
Evening primrose Oenotheria biennis 5
'Apply seed mix at a rate of 45 lbs./acre.
Restoration Plan SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening August 27, 2008
Restoration Plan Prepared By: S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704.523.4726
704.525.3593
Contact: Catherine Luckenbaugh, C.E.
[e-mail]