20090145 Ver 1_401 Application_20090209

PAI
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
09-0 1 45
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS)
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: CSWS; Mr. Isaac Hinson, PWS
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: N/A
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Charlotte
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: N35.25795° Long: W80.89184° (Decimal Degrees Please
10. Quadrangle Name: Mountain Island Lake Charlotte West, dated 1996
11. Waterway: UT to Tillman Branch and Tillman Branch
12. Watershed: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 3
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request Fr.' cr9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'-'wTt1
-------- --------------------
v
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
11 CWS]
Caralira Wetland Services
L
February 10, 2009
Ms. Amanda Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOBE BLD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866-527-1177 office)
704-527-1133 fax)
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3 and
Water Quality Certification No. 3687
Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2009-2547
The Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood Project is located approximately 0.5 mile north of
the Glenwood Drive - Interstate 85 interchange in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1, enclosed). The
purpose of this project is to reduce flooding, dissipate high velocity storm flows at outfalls, and reduce
storm-induced erosion downstream of culverts. Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) has
contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for
this project.
Applicant Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services, Isaac J. Hinson
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-336-4495
Street Address of Project: Various, Charlotte, NC - See Figure 1.
Waterway: UT's to Tillman Branch and Tillman Branch
Basin: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.257950, W80.891840
USGS Quadrangle Name: Mountain Island Lake and Charlotte West, NC, 1996
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is residential with maintained lawns and small adjacent
wooded and commercial areas. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciua), box elder (Ater negundo), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), common blackberry
(Rubus argutus), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and fescue grass (Festuca sp.). According to the
Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County', on-site soils consist of Cecil-Urban land complex (CuB and
CuD), Mecklenburg-Urban land complex (MkB), Monacan loam (MO), Pacolet sandy loam (PaE), and
Urban land (Ur). Cecil soils and Pacolet soils are well-drained, Mecklenburg soils are moderately
well-drained, and Monacan soils are somewhat poorly drained. Monacan soils have been listed in the
North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County as having hydric inclusionsz.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
z United States Department of Agriculture -Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999. North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA-
NRCS North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
NORTH CAROLINA • SOEH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood February 10, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Proiect No. 2009-2547
Jurisdictional Determination
On January 15, 2009 CWS's Thomas Blackwell and Jamie MacMartin investigated on-site jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Routine On-Site Determination
Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual 3 There are
no jurisdictional wetland areas within the project limits. A Routine On-Site Data Form representative of
non jurisdictional upland areas has been enclosed (DPI and Photo F). Jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
were classified according to recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and USACE
guidance. NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets, and
USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms representative of Streams A and B have been
enclosed (SCPI and SCP2).
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are two jurisdictional stream channels
located within the project area (Figure 1, enclosed) that will be affected by the neighborhood storm water
improvements. Jurisdictional stream channels include Stream A and Stream B (Tillman Branch). Stream
A is an unnamed tributary to Tillman Branch. Tillman Branch is within the Catawba River basin (HU#
03050103)5 and is classified as "Class C" waters by the NCDWQ.
Stream A flows southeast beneath S. Hoskins Rd. to its confluence with Tillman Branch approximately
400 linear feet downstream (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A was evaluated to be perennial and
exhibited a strong bed and bank, strong flow, substrate consisting of silt to coarse gravel, and an
average ordinary high water width of 4-5 feet. Biological sampling within the stream channel revealed
a moderate presence of amphibians. Due to evidence of typical year-round flow, Stream A was
classified as a Perennial RPW according to USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream A scored
47 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 37 out of a
possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1, enclosed). Photographs of
Perennial RPW Stream A are enclosed as Photographs A and B.
Stream B (Tillman Branch) travels south through the eastern portion of the project area for
approximately 1,830 linear feet (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream B was evaluated to be perennial and
exhibited a strong bed and bank, strong flow, substrate consisting of silt to large cobbles, and an
average ordinary high water width of 10-15 feet. Biological sampling within the stream channel
revealed a strong presence of fish and a moderate presence of amphibians. Due to evidence of typical
year-round flow, Tillman Branch was classified as a Perennial RPW according to USACE/EPA
guidance. Tillman Branch scored 55 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet and 40 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
(SCP2, enclosed). Photographs of Tillman Branch are enclosed as Photographs C - E.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on January 30, 2009 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would
be affected by the project. As of the date of this submittal, a response from SHPO has not yet been
received. The project is located in a residential subdivision; the occurrence of any area of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance is unlikely.
3 Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999. Stream Classification Method. Version 3.1.
s "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
2
Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood February 10, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Proiect No 2009-2547
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on January 30, 2009
to determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical
habitat located within the project area. As of the date of this submittal, a response from NCNHP has
not yet been received.
Purpose and Need for the Project
Flooding and erosion problems within the project area have been reported by neighborhood residents
and are documented in formal responses to City questionnaires and service requests. Responses to the
City questionnaires identified the problems as property flooding (8 responses), erosion (13 responses),
and other (10 responses). The purpose of this project is to reduce flooding, dissipate high velocity
storm flows at outfalls, and reduce storm-induced erosion downstream of culverts. This overall project
will involve the installation of approximately 29,100 linear feet of curbing, 4,400 square yards of
sidewalk, 9,200 linear feet of storm sewer piping with associated structures, and 5,900 linear feet of
waterline. The only disturbance to jurisdictional waters will be caused by the installation of rip-rap
energy dissipation aprons at the ends of three existing outlets along streams A and B.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
The existing culverts entering jurisdictional waters are being kept intact. Proposed rip-rap aprons were
designed to the minimum length necessary to reduce erosive forces immediately downstream of the
existing pipe outfalls. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize
disturbances to downstream waters.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters total approximately 69 linear feet (0.014 acre)
and are the result rip-rap installation at the outfalls of three existing pipes entering streams A and B. The
existing pipes discharging into streams A and B will be left in place. Proposed impacts are illustrated in
Figures 2, 3, and 4 (enclosed). Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table
1, below.
Unavoidable permanent impacts to Perennial RPW Stream A total approximately 30 linear feet and are
the result of rip-rap installation. The existing currently serviceable 24 linear foot rip-rap apron located
at the outfall of the existing 48" culvert (Photo B), under South Hoskins Road, will be replaced with a
54 linear foot rip-rap apron at the outlet of the existing culvert. This will result in a net impact of 30
linear feet (Figure 2, enclosed).
Unavoidable permanent impacts to Perennial RPW Stream B (Tillman Branch) total approximately 39
linear feet and are the result of rip-rap installation at two separate outfalls. The first outfall is located
at the double 24" RCP's (Photo D) behind 4308 Welling Avenue. The impact is a result of the
installation of 62'L x 12'W x 32'W trapezoidal rip-rap apron perpendicular to the stream and will
result in 32 linear feet of permanent impact (Figure 3, enclosed). The second outfall is located at the
18" RCP (Photo E) behind 4168 Welling Avenue. The impact is a result of the installation of 12'L x
6'W x 7'W trapezoidal rip-rap apron perpendicular to the stream. This will result in 7 linear feet of
permanent impact (Figure 4, enclosed).
On behalf of CSWS, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application with attachments
in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 27 and pursuant to Nationwide Permit
(NWT) No. 3 and Water Quality Certification No. 3687 (enclosed).
Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood February 10, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Project No 2009-2547
Tnhle 1 _ Cnmmurv of Tmnnofe +n nn_Ci*a Tnrieriintinnal W af-
Temporary/
- Permanent ,
Jurisdictional Intermittent 1 Approximate. Approximate
Feature Perennial Impact Type Length L Acreage
Perennial RPW

Stream A Perennial Rip-Rap 301f 0.003
Perennial RPW
Stream B Perennial Rip-Rap 39 if 0.011
(Tillman Branch)
Stream Impacts ota 691f 0.014 acre
Stream Impacts (Permanent) 691f 0.014 acre
Compensatory Mitigation
Design for construction of this project has limited the amount of perennial stream impacts to 69 linear
feet; therefore, no mitigation is currently being proposed for this site.
Please do not hesitate to contact Isaac Hinson at 704-336-4495 or [e-mail] should
you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
Isaac J. HiNson, PWS Thomas J. Blackwell
Wetland Specialist Project Scientist
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Mountain Island Lake and Charlotte West, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts Sheet 1
Figure 3. Proposed Impacts Sheet 2
Figure 4. Proposed Impacts Sheet 3
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 3
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCPI and SCP2)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCPI and SCP2)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (SCP1 and SCP2)
Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
Representative Photographs (A - F)
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Cantrell, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
File at Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
4
i E c ti L _. 3: IP - Glenwood
T^ . :.t . is L° ter PMLect No ' V47
Image Coutesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7-5 Minute TopograpNc Map Series, Mountain Island Lake and Charlotte West Q krargVes- North Cawlifla,
Dated 1996.
Appro-imate Scale I" = 2000'
Thomasboro/ffoskins Please 3 NIP- Glenwood
Jurisdictional Determination Letter Project No. 2009-2547
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS
NRCS soil Sun-ey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Sheet Nos. 3 and 6, Dated 1976.
Approminate Scale F = 2000,
I
r.
H>00 W o
N ?" awumum 8 K M
c •- c a P............ a G ?o
e e
O o
? la • W n'
z r yr aJ? zo os
0 do .4
to g r C.)
z ODE
to b.W
Y v \ fi /??G O Cx7 d d
?"LUO 4
U Cc
LLI ? / \\ ? ?JYY b ~ ° y
0
C4 LU
C4 ar}
.? ry uFdz zY5W'.-f // ?°op r. .g
% xx / /
LJ m
It Q<?
--sol Lu Q. 17
LL U.1
U.1 w
Ell
y ?
On'
3O.Ae JN` +'I a?`, -_ io` ,boo = 1 I- NI a'
r S \
as i i I r
f0 Q I % L- -- 1 I N G CSI b
MaOlIB
-- - = ---- .fit ?q?
d 4 __ - 1 pd g QWgE i
4 I
xA ` ? xo xu ? o
b
[ Rig ??m ®sJJ 3 ;+" 1 :? 3 C?gog
SIT ??;?
r? ?F'? 61' ?.? 1 I Y3bg Zx;N $3 zu ?3 r, "yny
??c•2? rllE? ,z'::I 1 I„r,A. a_?1 + ?? ,Ia"?VI "€V
A (`tom) -?? ? _-
p
y , -?? ea Z? I f 7rn Nb'/y77/1?
i? ^? N?y?d •?3 ? ? I W Ito Na / '(i.-'?? ??J ? ?___? _ _____
Tjpnu
v_ gNu. S n } f0 r-? '?' 0 1 II I ?•'o ?i'?' ^ ?N `""'"m
' I Z M CL (D-e ?1
g n. ? I Q 1 1 ? ?.?-a??
?i Q 1 I n / m„ ?
a° a3W
??I11 ? y?1Y?a1
- N p gNgg y
M a \ {.,i;e 6'd3 mGc?S $ k f I 1 3 ' ` ?g p
^?L' M "ira3 \ RNi'"? mQ 1 I UD{
Ell
t. 5;
\ \\ 1 ,/ yqr'' ?s
a ? SGa?z?-.. 7z..
\ \\? rya oro (? ?., / / $ a °
?glip 1 .. ?? (? -?:Ja ??` ss ?. ? ? x•43\ \ -?ry? \ y M / f
"? ;? • •,.? \ e? L<A?6L`^.. moo- i' "/ 1
a 9? to ?= a \ ° \ ` ? ? ?rt'sy ??ri MV\ \s m ! / 019 y
JJJ- - CV $? ??
I I ` ?? ,? ?r e4a ?l?k? "W/ ?;a=aa >d^ o. ?
"R°U,r.
MAI o? v; pa F
a o 9 N:4- - J g Rpm VD g n - 8 g$g
??? mo9?
i?Gazrc?Luu3 a8?e3(7 u L 'IFS 1 ncal? $?
LSp?
N??? r °' ? / \ ?S6e nxmOnS s$ZL$
i
d
w
a
m-? ?a?dWn me?Y ???

. ,
I

V M > CN W V \

(1) CO N
O n

V N C a
'
N C N
Z o
0 0
?C))
'
V

US
z
C .E G. N

n"
iii
i I
(D =amp
o°
II
KD
O
l8;
--- --- ° --
W ? a
N =
LL
W 3 W
. 0001 ??
?
ln en
R
`\ +
Zia
\J ??
;iS "
r. 0qy?
.QiNM n..
1 ?W
1
b?
8
O 4y
t''n , 0 1i Z p m 8L 133HS 338 00*4L Y18 3NII H?LYW
U
?z w ?.
0.000 _
?
0a; W Eo - -r
c w o W Nazi G
C) C
LO co
LO m O
644
O
O '
F'
M
V U
o Y
a`o°a
y
a M ?

(? V
C
rn
N LL E

di
LU O
t
~ }
m

E
.? ._? W
J w
L LU
__

( a
°
a
9t
1 L

a? ig
g
v o?
?alrvrc? 4?:
c..
4L ISIx'1 ---
/
iy
't,
b
6
on

?Ippul'IlWp?xyt
..............

PJr
?
...._ %•noea?
._.. 4. f
s
$g?

RIJN

URT
\GO
aEE?Es -,S...i
11? ?
gag
jo'L
o ?
m°
?po T ?I
c 0
?
o ,
-
O A r.? ?
i? o Y

el Y

sl y

a
F-
ZwU
Z Q()
QO
c?zz(n
zzo=
:wUF-
?oWLU
W C) in
CL F- Z
Cdi4
A Jd]
s
0
01 J33H8 339 00+9 Y.L6 3NI1 WOM
0 M
c -6 N
m CO
v co c
N-?c`o
cU
m C
3?_^^ Z
V/
c ca
W o
O ? s
m cD U
u
O ?p
O ?
OL J33HB 338 00•Ll YIS 3NII HDIVW
N? C I Vo I N H
T Z OZ FLA N C 2 ? I

o. O a N
rn
v
I
v
?o o --

iE

°
m
w
a
ah
-
-
-----.
w
a

LL= ro
L -
12,E
1 ?
Ob'O2/ N/3HA(379
l { i
W
a
(x W e
'`' Cdd 1`. ? ? ? t eo
\\ylllllllllllry1111 ~
V°ff-
? I ??a a~ y
y? I •,11111111\\\?`
3Gn ?I1
r i
N J
07 Also
rhl?? qqqq?? ?cc
= I Y Y.. d 3 d
g n
sfigr.
_l
oil
Sul
_i _...._.?
will
+6590
lip
Z.
_Z.q
N
i
e
e
?g g????'q
I?b4 ?4
g
°E iM X
? y
ail=
9? _ sks

SO SHEET
MATH SINE STa
N ??rY
A !f
36
Z
W
z0 >oz
O a m
Q
wu P
? , Z
OZ(UU- u-
U- JLLI rYw
V-imD,
z?oURCL
I±
lit
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: February 10, 2009
COUNTY Mecklenburg County, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 139 acres approx.
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Thomasboro/Hoskin Phase 3 - Glenwood
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Charlotte Storm Water Services
POC: Mr. Isaac J. Hinson, PWS, at [phone]
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: maintenance )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minim um, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) USGS 7.5-Minute Mountain Island Lake Charlotte West, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X) NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Figure 1)
(X) Proposed Impacts Sheet 1 (Figure 2)
(X) Proposed Impacts Sheet 2 (Figure 3)
(X) Proposed Impacts Sheet 2 (Figure 4)
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3
(X ) NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1 and SCP2)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1 and SCP2)
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (SCPI and SCP2)
(X) Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map
(X) Routine On-Site Data Form (DPI)
(X) Representative Photographs (A - F) r
AMA!
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Isaac J. Hinson, PWS
OF NWNA
09-0145
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.0 November 2008
Pre-ConstliilvtioaCc n Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit E] Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number: Water Quality Certification No. 3687
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name on Recorded Deed: N/A
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: N/A
3e. City, state, zip: N/A
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
Section A. Applicant Information, continued
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: City of Charlotte
4b. Name: Mr. Isaac Hinson, PWS
4c. Business name
(if applicable): City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS)
4d. Street address: 600 East Fourth Street
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina, 28202
4f. Telephone no.: [phone]
4g. Fax no.: [phone]
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A (many)
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.25795'N - 80.89184'W
1 c. Property size: 139 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Tillman Branch
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Class C
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The existing land use of the project area is residential with maintained lawns and small adjacent wooded and commercial
areas.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
N/A
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
2,230 linear feet of Perennial RPW stream channel
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Flooding and erosion problems within the project area have been reported by neighborhood residents and are
documented in formal responses to City questionnaires and service requests. Responses to the City questionnaires
identified the problems as property flooding (8 responses), erosion (13 responses), and other (10 responses). The
purpose of this project is to reduce flooding, dissipate high velocity storm flows at outfalls, and reduce storm-induced
erosion downstream of culverts.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This process will involve the installation of approximately 29,100 linear feet of curbing, 4,400 square yards of sidewalk,
9,200 linear feet of storm sewer piping with associated structures, and 5,900 linear feet of waterline. The only
disturbance to jurisdictional waters will be caused by the installation of rip-rap energy dissipation aprons at the ends of
three existing outlets along streams A and B. A trackhoe and other standard construction equipment will be used for this
project.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
N/A
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ®No El Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ® Yes ? No
6b. If yes, explain.
This is phase 3 of the project. It started in 2002 and was put on hold due to funding issues in 2003. The project restarted
in 2008 when funding was solidified and the design was completed. The constuction is tentatively planned to start in
October of 2009 and be completed by March 2011. Previous phases of this project did not include impacts to
jurisdictional streams or wetlands that required notification to the regulatory agencies.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or impact (if known) DWQ - non-404, other)
Temporary (T)
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f.
Stream impact Type of Stream name Perennial (PER) or Average stream width (feet) Impact
number - impact intermittent (INT)? length
Permanent (P) or (linear feet)
Temporary (T)
S1 ®P ? T Rip-Rap Perennial RPW
Stream A ® PER ? INT 4.5 30
Perennial RPW
S2 ® P ? T Rip-Rap Stream B ® PER ? INT 12.5 39
(Tillman Branch)
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
S4 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
S6 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
3g. Total stream and tributary impacts 69
3h. Comments: Permanent Impacts total 69 If (0.014 acre)
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
4. Open Water Impacts
if there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
- Permanent (if
(P) or applicable)
Temporary (T)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact (square Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for impact Stream name mitigation feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
(T)
61 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Permanent
impacts have been limited to 69 linear feet (0.014 acre) of perennial stream channel. Proposed rip-rap aprons were
designed to the minimum length necessary to reduce erosive forces immediately downstream of the existing pipe outfalls.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All
construction activities will be conducted in the dry.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm, cool, cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h.. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation, continued
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
Total buffer mitigation required:
6c. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6d. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? ? Yes ? No
2. Determination if the Project Requires a Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Does the project require a Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit? ? Yes ® No
2b. Is the project subject to General Certification 3704 or 3705? ? Yes ® No
3. Determination of Stormwater Review Jurisdiction
3a. Is this project subject to any of the following state-implemented stormwater ? Coastal counties
management programs (check all that apply)? ? HQW
? ORW
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the DWQ and one copy of the ? Session Law 2006-246
approved stormwater management plan. ? Other:
3b. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? City of Charlotte
3c. Is this local government certified to implement a state stormwater program? ® Yes ? No
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the local government and one copy
of the approved stormwater management plan (or one copy of the approved
Stormwater management plan stamped as approved).
4. Information Required for DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
4a. What is the overall percent imperviousness according to the most current site plan? `20% - No change in impervious
percent

4b. Does this project contain any areas that meet the criteria for "high density" per ? Yes ® No
General Certifications 3704 and 3705?
4c. If the site is over 24% impervious and/or contains high density areas, then provide a brief narrative description of the
stormwater management plan.
4d. Has a completed BMP Supplement Form with all required items been submitted
? Yes ® No
for each stormwater BMP?
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
f
®Yes ? No
use o
public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ?Yes ®No
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
?
Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on January 30, 2009 to determine the
presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area. As of the date of this submittal, a response from NCNHP has not yet been received. CWS also looked at the
Natural Heritage Elemental Occurences (NHEO) and the Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) GIS layers and found
no conflicts within or near the project area.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on January 30, 2009 to determine the presence
of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. As of the date
of this submittal, a response from SHPO has not yet been received. The project is located in a residential subdivision; the
occurrence of any area of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance is unlikely.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Map No. 37119C0165E
Isaac Hinson, PWS
Wetland Specialist
2/10/09
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant Date
is provided.)
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/15/2009 Project: Thomashoro/Hosluns Latitude: N35.257950
Evaluator:TJB & JCM Site: SCP1 Longitude: W80.891840
Total Points: Other Perennial RPW Stream A
Stream is at least intermittent County:
ii _ 19 a Parenoiai ii =_ M0 ??_nn Mpeklpnhnra e. g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 17.0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Activ e/relic ficodplain 1.0 0 _
1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
T Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 0,0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-mane artcnes are not ratea: see alscussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 11.5 )
14. Groundwaterflo4discharge 3.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain 1
Water in channel -- dry or rowing season 3.0 _
0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= 8.50 )
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 '. Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26, Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 _
0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus.
1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
_
29 t. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 _
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0: Other = 0
uems Lu ano L7 locus on the presence of upland plants item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Motes (use hack side of this form for additional notes.)
LOFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Perennial RPW Stream A
?r+ Y
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .,
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Tom Blackwell and Jamie MacMartin
3. Date of Evaluation: 1 / 15/09 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:25 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Tillman Branch F_ Rive.rRaqin- Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 47 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 85 take the Glenwood Drive exit. Exit
35 and turn north onto Glenwood Drive. Travel approximately 0.5 mile and site will be at the Glenwood Drive - South Hoskins Road
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.25795 °. W80.89184°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): maintenance
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cold and sunny
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 47 degrees sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters ^Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-1V)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NQ 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 100 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial ?% Agricultural
?% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
21. Bankfull Width: 4-5' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 47 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 1/15/09
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCPI Perennial RPW Stream A

1. Presence of &* persia_ fit poo in stream
1 5
0
0,- 4
0-5
4
r
no flow or saturation ° 0 4ang flow maz rots 1

'2 Evidence of past human `alteration .
?:-
0 6
0?-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration . 0 no alteration.-max rots
RinAriAn 7,nn
3 no buffer= 0 con oiiswide buffet= max ints ; 0 - 6 v - 4 u - 5 . 2

4 Evidence. of nutrient or chemical discharges

"'
0
-5
0-4.
0-4
3
ints
extensive disc = 0 no discharges = max .
Gro iudwater dise6rge :. `
5

iax rots
nodisch a=0 s rin see
wetlands etc. :=
ps, 0-
0-4 _
0=4
3
Presence of adjacentfloodplan'
6 -
no fl lain = 0; po
extensive flood lam = max rots . 0-4 0-4 0-2 2
7
floodplam access
n -S
0 0-4 0=2 1
fre ent floodiii `= max ints
entrenched,= O;
(deeply
resence of adjacent wetlands
8 no wetlands s 0;large adjacent wetlands= niax points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity 6-5 0=4 0-3 2
extensive channeliiation 0; 'natural meander = inax rots -

10 Sediment input

extensive deposition= 0, little or no sediment = max points '

0-4

0-4

2

?. 11 Size & diversity, of channel bed substrate 0 _'4, _5
0 1
fine, homo enous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 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
were 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 throu out = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15 substantial impact ?; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0 -3 0-5 0-6 2
riffles/ripples lor pools = 0; well-developed = max rots

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
4
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
-
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

`19 Substrate embeddedness
0-4
0-4
1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose` structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0 - 4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points

21 Presence of amphibians,
'
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0;
Comm on, numerous types = max oints

22 Presence of Cash .
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence ° 0; common, numerous s = max ints

23 Evidence 'of wildlife use.
0-6
0'- 5
0 - 5
1
' no evidence.=.0; abundant evidence= max oints
i
47
{ l nese cnaractenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.
PERENNIAL RPW STREAM A
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section 1V of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): February 11, 2009
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
L. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND I1VFV1i1V1E11ll/N: Thomasburuinusxurs ii&w 3 NIP - GlcilwuOu, Cua,10uc, NC -
Perennial RPW Stream A
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. N35.25795° If, Long. W80.89184° !,.
Universal Transverse Mercator.
Name of nearest waterbody: Tillman Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Irwin Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: February 11, 2009
Field Determination. Date(s): January 15, 2009
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "Seaters 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 watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into IN Ws
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: 400 linear feet: 4-5 width (ft) and/or 0.04 acres.
Wetlands: 0.00 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
NJ 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 P-TW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
I Supporting documentation is presented in Section HIT.
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 MALI and Section IILD.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section III.D.I.; 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 Rapaeos 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 IH.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 HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HLB.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and otfsite. 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: , 0%-. _
Drainage area: i}i
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through . _. tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are river miles from TNW
Identify xplain: N/A.
flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Project waters are river miles from RP W.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are No- aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. E
'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.
(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:
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/ 1 complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry:
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow•
Tributary provides for: MUM
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year-
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: . 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
Q High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(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.
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: JIM. Explain:
Surface flow is: y?, ..
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: IS M_ 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 berrn/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from:
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the #I Md 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 an
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the 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 TN-Ws. 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.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TN Ws where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream A flows southeast beneath S. Hoskins Rd. to its confluence with Tillman Branch approximately
400 linear feet downstream (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited a strong bed and bank,
strong flow, substrate consisting of silt to coarse gravel, and an average ordinary high water width of 4-5 feet. Biological
sampling within the stream channel revealed a moderate presence of amphibians. Due to evidence of typical year-round flow,
Stream A was classified as a Perennial RPW according to USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream A scored 47 out of
a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 37 out of a possible 71 points on the
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1, enclosed).
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 400 linear feet4-5 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWL
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):
El 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.
Q 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.
El 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. W
10 etlands 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.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
W 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):"
Q which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
'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 CW A 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 Regar&V CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
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:
w Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
T.a...tn.ar .a,otora• V-- f -f '4,41, Oil
Other non wetland waters: acre
s.
Identify type(s) of waters:
In 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 ikrequired 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 fording is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakestponds: 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:USGS 7.5' Mountain Island Lake and Charlotte West, NC Topographic
Quadrangle,dated 1996.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
Sheet Nos. 3 and 6, dated 1976.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
" FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
XMap® 4.0
?a?'3. ? aienmg ?
?Tuckaway Park
51
1106
773 64U neville.
[3649
155C?
< Providence
3780
D 2003 DeLorme, XMapo. TN Scale 1 126,20
www.delorme.com MN (6.7-M '
6 z 3 4
s M
1" = 2.00 mi Data Zoom 10-6
XMapO 4.0

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/15/2009 Project: Thomasboro/Hosidns Latitude: N35.257950
Evaluator:TJB & JCM Site: SCp2 Longitude: W80.891840
Total Points: Other Tillman Branch
Stream is at least intermittent county:
f? ,9 c. ,cram ixf ;f? 30 40_00 Mecklenhutru e.g Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 19.0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3
1.0
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
_
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 3.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 3.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0 0 1 2 3
9 e Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B Hvdrolocty fSuhtotal = 11.5 1
14. Groundwaterflow/discharge 3.0 0 1 2 3
15, Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or rowing season 3.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biclow (Subtotal= 9.50 )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22 Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 1.0 0 0.5 _
1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0 Other = 0
- items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Sketch-
hJotes (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 - Tillman Branch
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Tom Blackwell and Jamie MacMartin
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/15/09 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Tillman Branch 6. River Rmin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 47 acres 8. Stream Order:
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 If 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 85 take the Glenwood Drive exit. Exit
35 and turn north onto Glenwood Drive. Travel approximately 0.5 mile and site will be at the Glenwood Drive - South Hoskins Road
intersection.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.25795 °. W80.891840
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): maintenance
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cold and sunny
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 47 degrees, sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-1V)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 100 % Residential ,% Commercial % Industrial ?% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
21. Bankfull Width: 10-15' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5-10'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 55 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature , L&bj , Date 1/15/09
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 - Tillman Branch

, F. Presence offlow / persistent pdol? n stream
L
. 4 0-5 0=4 0-5 4
no flow or saturation = 0 strop flow= max rots

2 Evidence of pas' human alteration
0--,6"
0-5 -
0-5
2
extensive"alteration = O66, alteration = max points)
Riparian zone -
`
3 no Buffer= 0; con ' pus wide buffer= max points v - o v - q u;- 5 2
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
_
extensive disch es - 0; no discharges max points) ,

5 ? Groundwater diseliarge
0-3
0=4
0,-4
3
no discharge,= 0; s rip s, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
no fl lain, = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
"Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 -5
0.= 4
0'- 2
3
(deeply entrenched= 0; frequent floodin = max pints

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)

9 Channel sinuosity
c
0 - 5
0`= 4'
0 - 3
1
extensive
hannelization = 0• naturatmeander = max points
10 Sediment input 0-5 0- 4 0 - 4 2
extensive deposition=
; little or no sediment - max points :, .
11 Size :& diversity of channel bed substrate 0- 4 0-5
2
fine, homo enous = 0. large, diverse saes = max ints
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12 (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max ints 0 - S 0-4 0-5 2

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 2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max-points)

I S fmpact by agriculture or livestock production
0
5
0
4
0
5
4
substantial impact ?; no evidence = max points) - - -
16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes -

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0- 3 0- 5 0
6 3

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
4
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
'
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
3
no shading
vegetation = O; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = O; loose structure = max
Presence of stream utvertebrates
20
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max pints 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints

22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous brpes = max points
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0= 5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max rots

'S .

r- :"7 • ;,.,?? r
?• ?. sir . ?`-
3
??:, 55
? i nese charactenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.
PERENNIAL RPW STREAM B
(TILLMAN BRANCH)
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): February 11, 2009
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood, Charlotte, NC -
Perennial RPW Stream B (Tillman Branch)
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
W.
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. N35.25795° A, Long. W80.891840
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Tillman Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Irwin Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: February 11, 2009
Field Determination. Date(s): January 15, 2009
SECTION Ii: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
There A"
review area [Required]
Q Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
[j 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 1NWs
( 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 TN Ws
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: 1,830 linear feet: 10-15 width (ft) and/or 0.53 acres.
Wetlands: 0.00 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on >198't 0el* tiuo,Manua)
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.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IH.A.1 and 2
and Section IH.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HI.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
ql]M lari7e.. ratinnale ainnortino, determinatinn-
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 HI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section 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 HI.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pielc i
Drainage area: i ,Lisf?
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through P411k tributaries before entering TN W.
Project waters are Pick Lis river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick Lists 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: N/A.
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
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that aovlv):
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: P i 'List.
Primary trihntarv cnhctratr rmmnncitinn trhrrk all that annlvl-
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/%cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of nuVriflle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometryP]c? D
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick,J[.st
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pikl4 List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is kkk>tis . Characteristics:
Subsurface flow Pic>iis>. 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: d
? 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 kiii]Liit. Explain:
Surface flow is: Piek List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: j1*1 M. 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 Pi&flii river miles from TN W.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the tick Lisi 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
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 TN W?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwcbs?
• 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.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream B (Tillman Branch) travels south through the eastern portion of the project area for
approximately 1,830 linear feet (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream B was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited a strong bed and
bank, strong flow, substrate consisting of silt to large cobbles, and an average ordinary high water width of 10-15 feet.
Biological sampling within the stream channel revealed a strong presence of fish and a moderate presence of amphibians. Due
to evidence of typical year-round flow, Tillman Branch was classified as a Perennial RPW according to USACE/EPA
guidance. Tillman Branch scored 55 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and
40 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP2, enclosed).
El 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: 1,830 linear feet10-15width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
N...._ADWes tl:^t flow iii rtl nr in.firo?tly into TNW.
[] Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
q Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
[Q Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
E 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:
El 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!
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
El 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
El 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):19
n which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
'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 Jurisdicdon Following Rapanos.
it from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
P Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
(lth.-r nnn-m-tland wsterv acrrc
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
El 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).
H 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):
Q Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
0 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:USGS 7.5' Mountain Island Lake and Charlotte West, NC Topographic
Quadrangle,dated 1996.
M USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:MRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
Sheet Nos. 3 and 6, dated 1976.
E] National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
Previous determination(s). File no, and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
[] Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
© Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
I" = 2.00 mi Data Zoom 10-6
1" = 2,000 ft Data Zoom 13-1
vF=r_r-TATInN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1 Acer negundo tree Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Liquidambar slyraciua tree FAC+ 10
3 Platanus occidentalis tree FACW- 11
4 Ligustrum lucidum shrub - 12
5 Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC 13
6 Rubus argutus shrub FAC 14
7 Lonicerajaponica vine FAC- 15
8 Festuca sp. grass - 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
83%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant
plant s
pecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: NIA (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) iWater-Stained Leaves
i
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are not present.
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page I of 2 2/312009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

cnn c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan loam. 0 - 2 percent slope (MO) Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic FIUVaQ Uent1C EUtrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moisfl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 in. A 7.5YR 3/2 N/A N/A Sand loam
8-12 in. B 5YR 4/6 N/A N/A Sand clay loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sutfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
i
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hvdric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2
2/3/2009
Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood
Nationwide Permit No. 3 Project No. 2009-2547
Photograph A. View of Perennial RPW Stream A, facing downstream.
Photograph B. View of Perennial RPW Stream A 48" RCP, facing upstream.
Thomas boro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood
Nationwide Permit No. 3 Project No. 2009-2547
rnotograpn D. view of 24" RCP's entering Perennial RPW Stream B (Tillman Branch), facing west.
Photograph C. View of Perennial RPW Stream B, facing downstream.
A M
Thomasboro/Hoskins Phase 3 NIP - Glenwood
Nationwide Permit No. 3 Project No. 2009-2547