20090362 Ver 1_401 Application_20090409

i.1
CWS
Carolina Wetland Services
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 - Phone
704-527-1133 - Fax
TO: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
09-0362
Date: 4-2-09
CWS Project 2008-2535
r= t1h r=
-PA I APR 3 2009
- --------- ...._ DENR - WATER QUALITY
Y ETWQDS AND STQRWATER BRANCH
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ?Under separate cover via the following items:
? Prints ? Plans ? JD Package ? Specifications
? Copy of letter ? Change order ? Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
NO. DATE COPIES DESCRIPTION
1 4/2/09 1 Seigle Avenue NWT 14 and WQC No. 3704 application
2 4/2/09 1 Application fee check ($570)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
?For approval ?Approved as submitted ?Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ?Approved as noted ?Submit copies for distribution
?As requested ?Returned for corrections ?Return corrected prints
?For review and comment ?For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Cyndi,
Please find attached permit application and application fee for the Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project in
Mecklenburg County, NC. Pease do not hesitate to contact me if you have M questions or comments regarding
this project.
Copy to: File
Thank you,
omas Blackwell
Project Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS)
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: CSWS; Mr. Isaac Hinson
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): USACE Action ID 2008-1585 and USACE Action ID SAW-
2006-41402-361
5. Site Address: Seigle Avenue, Charlotte, NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/A 77?
7. City: Charlotte, NC
8. County: Mecklenbur
9. Lat: N35.22580 'Long: W80.82472 ° (Decimal Degrees Please
10. Quadrangle Name: Charlotte East, NC, dated 1991
11. Waterway: UT to Little Sugar Creek
12. Watershed: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 14
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
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:
CWS]
`, Caro{ina Wetland Services
March 30, 2009
Ms. Amanda Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 14
and Water Quality Certification No. 3704
Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2008-2535
The Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project is located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The project is
located approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the Interstate 277 - Independence Boulevard (US-74)
interchange in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1, enclosed). The purpose of this project is to replace
the existing Seigle Avenue culvert in order to alleviate flooding issues and provide a safer crossing.
Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to
provide 404/401 permitting services for this project.
Applicant Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services, Mr. Isaac Hinson, PWS
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-432-0936
Street Address of Project: Seigle Avenue, Charlotte, NC
Waterway: UT to Little Sugar Creek
Basin: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.22580°, W80.82472°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Charlotte East, NC, 1991
Current Land Use
The existing land use for the project area includes residential, commercial, and industrial areas.
Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of box elder (Ater negundo), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), redbud (Cercis canadensis), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), American holly
(Illex opaca), and catbriar (Smilax rotundifolia). According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg
County 1, on-site soils consist of Cecil-Urban land complex (CuB), Urban land (Ur), and Monacan
loam (MO). Cecil-Urban soils are well-drained and exhibit moderate permeability. Monacan soils are
somewhat poorly drained and are listed in the North Carolina hydric soils lise as having hydric inclusions.
Jurisdictional Determination
In May of 2008, CWS scientists delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S. at an adjacent project area
that shares the same stream. On December 30, 2008, CWS revisited the downstream portion of the
previously delineated on-site stream, to verify that previously documented conditions still exist.
' United States Department of Agriculture, 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
2 NRCS Hydric Soils of North Carolina, December 15, 1995.
Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project March 30, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 14 CWS Project No. 2008-2535
Jurisdictional areas were delineated 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 Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) guidance. These classifications included
sampling with a D-shaped dip net, taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location
at which a channel changes classification) within each on-site stream channel.
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there is one jurisdictional
stream channel (Stream A) located within the project area (Figure 1, enclosed), an unnamed tributary
to Little Sugar Creek. Little Sugar Creek is within the Catawba River basin (HU# 030501034) and is
rated "Class C waters" by the NCDWQ.
Stream A flows northwest across the project area and is approximately 365 linear feet in length
(Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited a strong bed and bank,
strong flow, substrate consisting of silt to small boulders underlined with bedrock, and an average
ordinary high water width of 8-12 feet. Biological sampling within Stream A resulted in a weak
presence of amphibians and benthic macroinvertebrates. Due to evidence of typical year-round flow,
Stream A was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW) according to USACE/EPA guidance
(AJDF, Perennial Stream A). Perennial Stream A scored 63 out of a possible 100 points on the
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 39 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ
Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1, enclosed). Photographs of Perennial
Stream A are enclosed as Photographs A - D.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on January 6, 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 adjacent to a previous site in which a letter, dated July 3, 2006
(enclosed), from SHPO states "We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are
aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment
on the undertaking as proposed."
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on January 6, 2009
to determine the presence of any federally-listed candidate, endangered, or threatened species or
critical habitat located within the project area. In a response letter, dated January 12, 2009 (enclosed),
the NCNHP stated that they have "no record of rare species, significant natural communities,
significant natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the
project area."
Purpose and Need for the Project
The Seigle Avenue Culvert floods during 10-year storm events. In order to alleviate flooding issues
and meet the City of Charlotte's design standards for culverts along thoroughfares (to handle a 50-year
design storm), the capacity of the existing culvert will be increased through the enlargement of the
existing in-stream barrel and addition of a barrel at the adjacent floodplain elevation. Additionally, the
' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
4 ,FIU#,, is the Hydrologic Unit Code. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974.
2
Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project March 30, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 14 CWS Proiect No. 2008-2535
culvert will be lengthened to accomodate roadway widening associated with the Hope VI/City of
Charlotte Housing Authority's Seigle Pointe project along Seigle Avenue, and to satisfy the Charlotte
Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards clear zone and pedestrian safety requirements along the
improved roadway. These requirements establish the final 103-foot length of the culvert. Rip-rap in
the stream channel will be installed at both inlet and outlet ends of the culvert to provide protection for
the structure during a l 00-year design storm.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. The length of proposed rip rap has been reduced as much as possible, while retaining the
ability to resist the expected erosive forces from storm water flows both upstream and downstream of
the proposed culvert. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize
disturbances to downstream waters. An erosion control plan has been included as Figure 4.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts to Perennial Stream A total approximately 209 linear feet and are the result of
culvert replacement and extension, rip-rap installation, and reshaping/stabilization of the stream
channel.
CSWS proposes to replace the existing 62 linear foot, 8'x8' reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC)
with a 103 linear foot, 12'x9' primary precast box culvert (PCBC; buried 1') and a 10'x6' PCBC
floodplain culvert (Figure 2, enclosed). This will result in an increase in culvert length of 41 linear
feet. Profile and cross section design drawings of the proposed crossing are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
The primary culvert will accommodate base flows, with the 2-year storm event spilling over into the
overflow (floodplain) culvert. The upstream channel and floodplain cross section will be reshaped to
include a 137-foot long floodplain bench, tying into the floodplain culvert. This floodplain bench will
replace an approximately 140-foot existing stone wall (Photograph D, enclosed), and therefore will not
result in additional impacts.
As illustrated in Photograph A (enclosed), there is an approximately 85 linear foot long serviceable
rip-rap apron at the outfall of the existing culvert. This will be replaced with a 55 linear foot rip-rap
apron beyond the outlet of the new 103 foot long culvert. Upstream, approximately 15 linear feet of
rip-rap will be placed in the stream channel to protect the culvert and roadway. In addition, a 16
linear foot rip-rap apron will be installed at the storm water pipe outfall, approximately 140 feet
upstream of the new Seigle Avenue culvert. This will result in a net impact of 1 linear foot of rip-rap.
Finally, bank stabilization and reshaping both upstream and downstream of the proposed culvert
replacement will result in approximately 167 linear feet of stream bank impacts (31 linear feet
downstream and 136 linear feet upstream, see Figure 2, enclosed). Stabilization and reshaping will
consist of the installation of rock toe protection (Figure 2, enclosed). Stream bank stabilization will
result in no loss of stream bed and will result in improved stream stability and habitat due to a
reduction in sediment input.
On behalf of CSWS, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application with attachments
in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 27 and pursuant to Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 14 and Water Quality Certification No. 3704 (enclosed).
Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1, below.
Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project March 30, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 14 CWS Project No. 2008-2535
Table 1. Summary of Existing and Proposed Impacts to On-Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional Intermittent / Impact Proposed Existing Net Approx.

Feature
Perennial
Type Permanent Impact Impacts
Acreage
Impacts I Length
Culvert 103 If 621f 411f 0.0094
Perennial RP W
Stream A Perennial Rip-Rap 861f 851f 1 if 0.0002
(Downstream)
Bank 1671f N/A 1671f 0
0383
Stabilization .
Stream Impacts (Total) 2091f
O.Q479
Compensatory Mitigation
After the October 21, 2008 mitigation bank field review with Alan Johnson ofNCDWQ and Amanda
Jones of USACE (collectively known as MBRT), it was agreed that CSWS would mitigate for the
cumulative impacts from this project, the Charlotte Solid Waste Services (SWS) Otts Street Facility
Project (USAGE Action ID 2008-2222, No NCDWQ Notification), the Louise Avenue Culvert
Replacement Project (USACE Action ID SAW-2006-41402-361, No NCDWQ Notification), and the
future upstream Louise Avenue Capital Improvement Project (CIP), since all of these projects are
located along the same 2,600 linear-foot perennial stream segment.
Impacts for four projects will be mitigated by construction of the future Louise Avenue CIP. A
portion of this project shall consist of stream enhancement and restoration. This phase of the Louise
Avenue capital improvements shall be constructed in late 2009 or early 2010. In the case that the
future Louise Avenue CIP does not get constructed or if the mitigation is not adequate to cover all
impacts, credits from the City of Charlotte Umbrella Mitigation Bank will be used to make up the
difference. For the Seigle Avenue culvert replacement and the previous two authorized project, CSWS
proposes to mitigate for additional channel bed impacts totaling 264 linear feet (42 If for Seigle Ave.
culvert, excluding bank impacts; 103 If for Louise Ave. culvert; and 119 If for SWS-Offs St. Facility).
Mitigation will also be provided for any additional impacts proposed by the future Louise Avenue CIP.
4
Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project March 30, 2009
Nationwide Permit No 14 CWS Project No. 2008-2535
Please do not hesitate to contact Isaac J. Hinson at 704-336-4495 or [e-mail] should
you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
Isaac J. Hinson
Wetland Specialist
Thomas Blackwell
Project Scientist
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Charlotte East, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts and Culvert Profile
Figure 3. Culvert Cross Section
Figure 4. Erosion Control Plan
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 14
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1)
USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
Representative Photographs (A - D)
Agency Correspondence
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Cantrell, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
File
Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project
Nationwide Permit No. 14
Project No. 2005-2535
?'; T,`t, Srl .. : tom- T r'-Y. .•?? i?..l!
"? [ •„ ? /' / / ? ? ,. r+' ? vim,

?
`
??
?R ?? }r r r s?ubt{tat,
d
T
?
a
to.
ow
1NSOC
b ?; r
`
) Ht
Y •`
?
/ GP rSlyy ?C r

?r?`
-.-AV, _--,,?(('
f
s r/ \c1i
.
6
Fin
Cam
4 10
llTi'
?
/
'
?y+
'j
?j
J
L f J?"
?-?1
?
?
?
?
'?
` C

.
?
.
,
O y
w?
Rd
E.
J
j
,!
?''? ,_1
• ti
- ? ? \ ,r'
is '? ??. ) h- - 1' 1'=??.?.ri y !
e ' - ?•
wle
5
?j
ZLI

'y\. 3']61PL f
`
?
?
?
'
%r?a i "_s ` rya r? tw Pa
_F1r??i'a i „r jT? a Seigle P.:,enue f
V
?\
ce
\
r
i
, ra
;
/' Interstate - 27
?': °?Atexan J Jr h 6eh
`'v
(
r
r',?Qt
is +?,\ _ ?..
?, r \? th Ji at y
?
\` aT A
ro r ?e di,'ont --
'S el _ Cntral A +enue I U <
_ s+A+

. - I ?.aC u
_,M , fj?' "rte,
Ann
on 71 -_
ll ?'"=oo
r

1 i
,> Ser»n 2mor1'!r!.\ tsdit,m. '
s
+ ?(,- ' I ?1
?? ?k\
l?'
?

ra
-- ?•-.GE Ny qAC
-
r? k er
Ar Y
F

? mot'
Y

r
{ .,; ge l
??
1Central
m
'?` '
S
re
? b i

ent
x. ?i
!
f
}
\
z
e der 6
St
n
`
, aQ p `ef ?
rc
n- / 4' \
ACA
\?.' \ "' /^\ \-1 \\s ' (mil o z+ 1` %?? ?? t Ce I' t 0 ?l?
r r ,' Wit! - J? ^z, l •//
lIIJJJ ThqW(p'56n 'Y-
Or
k
?
A 0 aBe
\
,
ty A ion
Ne,

I`
Pies ena 'vT /? ?V
L
?
?`
3 4
1 y>\
k (
<,,,ie ).?
.

k \\
?
%Y
1
'? ! /. ??. /•' '\ O 711 Cha
?; .
yw^ ` l t
am n lty?
_,
,
y
ParNl
'
te
f
s -?
\
Y?
? \
-`
"'
? ?'%
L..
.r
y` --
-
--;
i
-. ;;v ,
-
? .o,
? ?
??
j
?r
V t7l jai !F-1
PBr a'
AY ?
?1.? F i re e
Q
IN
,
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Charlotte East Quadrangle
North Caroli
d
,
na,
ated 1991.
Approximate Scale P= 2000'
Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project
Nationwide Permit No 14 Project No. 2008-2535
CeB2 cPBZ N
EnB ?
? Cep
CeD2 MO Or
I
CeB2 CUB Or
P
CeB2 a
i
? r
t Ur Ur PaE
CUD
CeB2 CUB CUB
i
J `'`,??C y y Or
C
Or Cub ( CUD
\1 CUB HUB y
MKB Hoe
I CUB y
M0 y y C
?% CHARLOTTE CUB y
., (county seat) Ur
Or Or
. :.
;e
CUB tiP UB
MS-
i
i
Cu
Or y Or
CUD \
S
CeB2 CUD
CeB2
Ur CUB y
MS
Or
MS r
I.,, r
Cub CUD
Q II
CUB PaE? ?CK MS
CCUB°.,
U CuD /•
Or MS
CUB CeD2
Or
CUB
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS
NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 7, dated 1976.
Approximate Scale I"= 2000'
a?
G
c
m c
c 0
U n
0
m 0
_
O
U
co (
n O `t•
y ? O _
O J G CO
_
O Q C 0 (Q

m
a
O
t
Q-
0_ U
m

U y.
G
U c' C: N
m m 0
cm •- E a
N = = N _0 N O D m
(A En
070
a)
C a- W W 4 d F? a- m U)

j a
J gg I ? U v
1

v
C M
~

d >
N

CC) N

~
z
ui

a

v
v 0 m of u- d
j
L fA G
:3 a il-. 'O^ w
L O
0) m N
w -0 C (L
3CeaM o

c cU

:_ o
can
E
n
m
o 6
'

Z L) '
R m
C C,
O O
U N
M
w
yr
6 m .
:- QI t
V w v o U
m
. J
r
'a O Z U
.S 6
UJ Z v
L- C)
Lo ca w
>- C

U
o
o
mU`
Rd?a.
> co
E C L
a ?( 0! U w
W ` a o
> ad
a_

z
d m
o
LL
LU U- LU
IL
C
0
Q
Q
Q
N
J
N
7
rn
C
x
W
:3 LL
cm
N
x
w
?c
c?
G
WQti
N J
Lo
C N CO
c c)
a?
d

m
z? m
O
LO
0
U)
N
O
LO
J
-z Z
w O LU
WWUU)
?: 3oED
Cn Q W
_Z 2
D J f -
WO >-
=C'fC6M
I-QO,
o C4 W
C:) LL
? m M E
woWW
hw >
m
?U) U WW
OUZO
ZZ
UZOW
U) OZQ
2
?ZWC6 co
W
?Ury
6i >
O W W W
Z o (A W
LNWNVVNVR + vKxwm waow '?uownw
f6t 3L.S 13#ItS M?i?Y011 3 CWt
_ ?tc?an?rs?ta ?
C +
wouaiw=
W
d
V M

C\j
co

O
fq m N d
4) aim
U) c s
o d w"
0 7E) CL 'U
d L ? a ? d

c
O n?
N
U v E =c4
L Z

u) a)

?' R O
U
•? Cf t a t2V
c? ?
`1

C Cc t:
W O

? 1: 0
&'C OZ ,
o
c) L a -
E o)Z ;

` (6
Lo -r- a - > 4i 0
7
t
c
V U yj N
1o°
,
a
a
o
o S.
tt
n
O
dU?
r
\
' `
a > v W?
z
u o Q a.
)jj a lV y °
SLYO
-90-1-91
A9 Q9wX?q
e?ct ?s?.-NCI
Yl"
AGMY. w samaoud v Nris
an
rrna•asw• atu
w? 3aKRAd TIOUS a
dI a
1N3W3HVW" *OM vNfDNVO =931M
Uad 9 9NI933N1!?N3 £02 319 S '133N15 £101
iillA'il1VF? ??n??uISl1 rsn
r?
C1 M
C CN
N
N CCI N
m ro

a N 00
Z C cU
? O
?$ ?z
wz 77) a)
t = 1L
IL
ffi 0-
O to (6
`° to U
U
s
n
r7'' v
U?j
1 , w
W
z
U
m
0
?a
to ?-
ammM
cN
-6 E
401 00
O n C) r
cc o
a?oZ
mZ u
O
W U 0 p
sf m L d
m=mm
)>VU
LL Q
d
m
Q
i-
o_
---- .uv0 AU ti7.iO9dJY
90-t-Zt Isn
,19OM M3 49117HYd9&t
M3N Isn
OMG'LD3-tnNS- nu
?Rt73181U1A?,SIMY-t101T3G-IYM11L}•310[E?"JYO\S I L000?51J310gd01Nl?ll - .lH,ll.:l
nv?s o (,or
,OZ-,t £10-SO-l1S
' f
u r r ?' ?I 11{ 11
I?11Q
Itk
\o
{ of
'Al
,
f
?jl
a `,e rtil 4 ` / I
9N t'
I I 'J 1t 11!
a -1 ,j
K
I ? ( { II
l I I ?+
I1 ? ?
'? ?? 't?? Iflj { I ?
rc r ??11 r 1 ?? f: { i?
,..N
I?
I 1
0
9011dltlK71
? -y
P( , 1 -
I
,
r f,
71
- $>r
I
I - _ I pry ' -
?.!
g)
I
u I
,. q I
I

G • ll0 !t
? vN N
shit ?.?..?-»'" ? •Y - _ -
? u.4i ? ? r I I
<?-
I ?
-?
i ,
olor
NV Td 110HIN03 NOISOH3 ( ZL)3
T)
.Lh 21W2lJd'1JT2 IM21ATIJ I ZJ:il
1AN3AV:1191 S 1A.,111
n o
s w ? ?
?rw
N y
I
I
100
?? Y
U
C M
- j r-
LdON '3llb111VHI
} f1!
m co a,.. Y3H32N7w '3 C'01

° IStI isn IMUN
? w m .?
a?i r

4) (n c
0 0 z
a o
m a
°- ass aye weld
c (a a o
.(
a
C tD

'
C o u C(f
' m' LR
F
++ Hwy, Q O
(n N p 3 ox,( use ?xo w
d p,U N x, 13 MOVIY3 ASM
a Uata
x
v
C UJ
O y
y

75
C) m
LC)
z ?Z
> ai m
L)

'

UU 0-
iL

m
m y

m U 1
P
o > U w_
L u f
j ? ?GQ

w
w w V
?
,
m
n

,( O
f-7f/J ?8
y 3
NOUIHN !U
N ?
?d
w cn '? ?
i 411 I i
I! (I I
?il , I? II
I I i? i 1
! I i I
{I it II
II i I II
11 I II II
iJ II It
!I ? i I
!I I! I(
I I i i I I
I ( i ! !
it ! i it
Ii I( II
N
0
/
f
1 ? f f b
I
_1 7
li G LL
it N o
0.
I I i? O
I Wz
Z
II a ??
(t? I I f ?' "
II
II
I (
I II
11
I I! i t i 1 1 ---'"`--
1I
z
?? !I Ai it n? iI ?W
11 ? I! i t ?? ? I I ???
II I ? I Ox I 1
z ; I 4,21 R I
? ! I !( I I I I
11 i t l l ? ? I I _ ---
I t I I I I I y -? 1--- ---- --
? !! I I I I ?-- x
L 1 1 i{ ( 1 ? u
?z vN i I?I ?x ! I I I f l
< -> ?,r? 4 1 I l
*? ? _---1•-jL.? 1 I I !', II I) !I ? WJ?
?_ (r ? (( II ? II T
I I I I 11 I I w? 3? ?'
11 i f I l ! i t ?o 00 °
?`a I! ? I I { I I I z? z a x
?`=? I! l i I I k l xN Nw ?
' I l I R
------.....---..?....... ..- V) m y o y
- '
z S?°
-7-4-4- 1 1
-?-- o
NIA .0-11 i I Niw
I I ( I :T ' I I J a- {
!? I 1 1 I I _ I I t l0 .J +.1
I I I I! ? I
l II II ? II 3
? I! ( I I I ? -- I I ?
1 o { $ -? I O
,? ! i ? I I I I I
r
/ y
t.a a a ?
4? o
0 ? I c
G 2
O Q
D. I C?
p V f (1
S / F
C
a
0
m
yr
V
0.
O

W
a
a o
?
u I
a

2 V G
I 1

I ?

i I
I
I
I
I
-
t-
F
1
I
?I m
z

n a ? G Qi G
0 o c=i' ° m

4 ? L

} C
; J
?
I
o x 4

a

3
K
S
a
L

0
O I I
? 1 k\
I 4
Z I
w i
I
? I s
I ?=
` I
i j
i
b I
i
a? !
O O 2
is
W W
O O
a u
M
R1
J ?
O 47 Y
? O O
a o 0
- m m
z
V
w
w
O{
J r
1G $
w
O
i
11
EC7
i
u
6.
{x>
is
I l7H`
all
z
O ?
Wy?
itlr 8
LLVq AR
(1 dY
_

SKOUVA3 l3 (INVN V III
a0-Gt-t: 106 .LI?I3W v'1r.J F 19.7 Q .L (I.i11 111
Afl (13MJ3H]
169 Aa n"OlVd3Nd
109 3 I NIAV 339I3S
4AOHdWI
S:I K31V
s(ao o? 3aamud na ,
39VNIV2HI W2IOIS
91V_11
9- uu eGx'
s(ao?ls itoso 3flK3Ad 3SLIO-l
R
3
2
li
('1
Z
:,

e?• i L? ....iy',Y

y.?
? ti
J
2 L

.

? 11c 1dc),"?1
.

?O ? ? n e? alt v4? a 8' ?µ t / (+.?1{] ,. 4.y' ?_\??+/? ?1%^\ye .'Y }{rd

R. Ky 1 a d
a
`F
? Y '
.. .
D \

C i A
A
ll
m m . . , ra ? ' r2,
co
Ul
t}?
yfi Ir /a

.
+f,: fl.
n

m
• ':
? J
61
f
4 i

O 6 I/ aV .. s\ fix.
cl\
X
± J
f•
N
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: March 30, 2009
COUNTY Mecklenburg County, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT N/A Linear Project
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Charlotte Storm Water Services
POC: Mr. Isaac J. Hinson, at (704) 3364495
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: Linear Project )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) USGS 7.5-Minute Charlotte East, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X) NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Figure 1)
(X) Proposed Impacts and Culvert Profile (Figure 2)
(X) Culvert Cross Section (Figure 3)
(X) Erosion Control Plan (Figure 4)
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 14
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1)
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
(X) Routine On-Site Data Form (DP I)
(X) Representative Photographs (A - D)
(X ) Agency Correspondence

Signature of Pfoperty Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Isaac J. Hinson, PWS
09-0362
A 0F W a re9Q9
? r
o -r
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.0 November 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number: Water Quality Certification No.
3704
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. 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
1 e. 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
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project
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 Storm Water Services
4b. Name: Mr. Isaac J. Hinson, PWS
4c. Business name
(if applicable): City of Charlotte Storm Water Services
4d. Street address: 600 East Fourth Street
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC, 28202
4f. Telephone no.: 704-336-4495
4g. Fax no.: 704-336-6586
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
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.22580'N - 80.82472'W
1 c. Property size: linear project N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Little Sugar Creek
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 for the project area is residential, commercial, and industrial areas.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
311 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The Seigle Avenue Culvert floods during 10-year storm events. In order to alleviate flooding issues and meet the City of
Charlotte's design standards for culverts along thoroughfares (to handle a 50-year design storm), the capacity of the
existing culvert will be increased through the enlargement of the existing in-stream barrel and addition of a barrel at the
adjacent floodplain elevation. Additionally, the culvert will be lengthened to accomodate roadway widening associated
with the Hope VI/City of Charlotte Housing Authority's Seigle Pointe project along Seigle Avenue, and to satisfy the
Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) standards clear zone and pedestrian safety requirements along the improved roadway. These
requirements establish the final 103-foot length of the culvert. Rip-rap in the stream channel will be installed at both inlet
and outlet ends of the culvert to provide protection for the structure during a 100-year design storm.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Unavoidable impacts to Perennial Stream A total approximately 209 linear feet and are the result of culvert replacement,
rip-rap installation, and reshaping/stabilization. CSWS is proposing to replace the existing 62 linear foot 8'x8' box culvert
with a 103 linear foot 12'x9' primary precast box culvert (PCBC; buried 1') and a 10'x6' PCBC flood culvert. This will
result in a net culvert impact of 41 linear feet. The primary culvert will contain base flows with the 2-year storm event
spilling over into the overflow culvert. An upstream floodplain bench will be constructed and tie into the floodplain culvert.
This floodplain bench will replace an approximately 140-foot existing stone wall (Photograph D, enclosed), and therefore
will not result in additional impacts. The existing currently serviceable 85 linear foot rip-rap apron located at the outfall of
the existing culvert will be replaced with a 55 linear foot rip-rap apron at the outlet and a 15 linear foot rip-rap apron at the
inlet of the new culvert. In addition, a 16 linear foot rip-rap apron will be installed at the storm water pipe outfall upstream
of Seigle Avenue. This will result in a net permanent rip-rap impact of 1 linear feet. Finally, bank stabilization and
reshaping both upstream and downstream of the proposed culvert replacement will result in approximately 167 linear feet
of stream bank impacts. Stabilization and reshaping will consist of the installation of rock toe protection. A trackhoe and
typical excavation equipment will be used for this project.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
? Yes ® No ? Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
? Preliminary ? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
? Yes ®No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
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 E] 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 Culvert Perennial RPW
Stream A ® PER ? INT 10 41

S2 ®P ? T
Rip-Rap Perennial RPW
Stream A
® PER F] INT
10 86 - 85
(existing
rip-rap) = 1

S3 ®P ? T Bank
Stabili- Perennial RPW
Stream A
® PER ? INT
10
167
zation
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
S6 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
3g. Total stream and tributary impacts 209
3h. Comments:
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 individually 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
0. 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 pro osed, 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 an impacts require mitigation, then you 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. The length of
proposed rip rap has been reduced to the maximum extent practicable given the amount of expected erosive forces both
upstream and downstream of the proposed culvert. 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.
Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be implemented during constuction to avoid further Impacts. Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to down stream waters. All work 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

El 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
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation, continued
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
After the October 21, 2008 mitigation bank field review with Alan Johnson of NCDWQ and Amanda Jones of USACE
(collectively known as MBRT), it was agreed that CSWS would mitigate for the cumulative impacts from this project, the
Charlotte Solid Waste Services (SWS) Offs Street Facility Project (USACE Action ID 2008-2222, No NCDWQ
Notification), the Louise Avenue Culvert Replacement Project (USACE Action ID SAW-2006-41402-361, No NCDWQ
Notification), and the future upstream Louise Avenue Capital Improvement Project (CIP), since all of these projects are
located along the same 2,600 linear-foot perennial stream segment.
Impacts for four projects will be mitigated by construction of the future Louise Avenue CIP. A portion of this project shall
consist of stream enhancement and restoration. This phase of the Louise Avenue capital improvements shall be
constructed in late 2009 or early 2010. In the case that the future Louise Avenue CIP does not get constructed or if the
mitigation is not adequate to cover all impacts, credits from the City of Charlotte Umbrella Mitigation Bank will be used to
make up the difference. For the Seigle Avenue culvert replacement and the previous two authorized project, CSWS
proposes to mitigate for additional channel bed impacts totaling 264 linear feet (42 If for Seigle Ave. culvert, excluding
bank impacts; 103 If for Louise Ave. culvert; and 119 If for SWS-Offs St. Facility). Mitigation will also be provided for any
additional impacts proposed by the future Louise Avenue CIP.
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 ? Yes No
buffer mitigation?
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
ithi ? Yes ® No
w
n 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
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the DWQ and one copy of the [] ORW
? 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? N/A - changes to imperveous
coverage are not applicable to
roadway pr9jects

4b. Does this project contain any areas that meet the criteria for "high density" per
General Certifications 3704 and 3705? ? Yes No
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
T
for each stormwater BMP? O Yes ? No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? ED Yes ? No
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. EE] 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
habitat? ? Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? ? Yes ®No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
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 6,2009 to determine the
presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area. In a response letter, dated January 12, 2009 (enclosed), the NCNHP stated that they have "no record of rare
species, significant natural communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor
within a mile of 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
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in El Yes No
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A previous letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June 14, 2006 to determine the
presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. In a
response letter dated July 3, 2006 (enclosed) the SHPO states, "We have conducted a review of the proposed
undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no
comment on the undertaking as proposed."
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: This project will result in no net rise in flood level. FEMA floodplain
ends at outfall of proposed culvert.
? Raleigh
? Asheville
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Map No. 37119C0187E
Isaac Hinson, PWS
Wetland Specialist

3/30/09
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Printed Name (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant Date
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: 12/30/2008 Project: Seigle Avenue Culvert Latitude: N35.225800
Evaluator:TJB & JCM Site: SCP1 Longitude: W80.82472°
Total Points: Other Perennial RPW Stream A
Stream is at least Intermittent county:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 39.00 Mecklenburg e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 19.0 )
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 Absent
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
3
2. Sinuosity 1.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3.0 0 1 2 3
5. Activetrelic floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0
9 a Natural levees 0.0 0
0 1
1 2
2 3
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
8RA.-A. .a3-k e...........4 ..-.a....t. --- ------- -
No = 0
Yes= 3
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain
or
,
Water in channel -- d or growing season 3.0 0 1 2
3
16. Leaflitter 1,0 1.5 1 0.5 p
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. Bioloav (Subtotal = 9.(10
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3
0 3 2 1
.
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3
0
3
2
1 0
.
22. Crayfish 0.0
0
p,5
1 0
1
5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 .
3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1
5
25. Amphibians 0.5 0 0.5 1 .
1
5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 0 0.5 1 .
5
1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 2.0 0 1 2 .
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.0
b 0 0.5 1 1
5
29
. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FA CW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2 .
0: Other = 0
Items 20 mnri 91 fnnnm - Fk- , r. -__ 1 _ .
• - - ------ -• -r-•••- I....... •, ?. ?.+ rvwaco Vn Inc p iGStlnce OT aqu BLic or wevand plants.
Notes: (use backside of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Perennial RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services 2. Evaluator's Name: Thomas Blackwell and Jamie MacMartin
3. Date of Evaluation: 12/30/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 12:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Little Sugar Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 360 acres 8, Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 3001f 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte, travel on Interstate 77 (1-77) to
Interstate 277 (1-277) via Exit 9 and merge onto I-277 N Travel approximately 2.5 miles and take the Tryon Street exit, Exit 3B and
merge onto East 12`a Street Travel approximately 80 feet and turn right onto North Davidson Street. Travel approximately 0.2 mile
and turn right onto Belmont Street Travel oproximately 0.3 mile and turn ri it onto Seigle Avenue. Travel approximately 0.2 mile
and end at culvert.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.225800W80.82472°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): stream crossing
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 60 degrees sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES O 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: 60 % Residential __L5_% Commercial 10 % Industrial _ o Agricultural
15 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 8-12' 22, Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 10-12'
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: X Straight -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): 63 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature -' fad Date 12/30/08
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1- Perennial RPW Stream A
- -377-
E ECOREGI41 POINT RANGE

Coastal Piedmont; Mountain v
Presence of flow I persistent pools in stream 0-5 0
4 0
5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow= max points) - -
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0 - 5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points
Riparian zone
no buffer = 0; contiguous,.wide buffer = max points 0 6 0 - 4 0 - 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) _ -
S Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4

no discharge -0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points 1
...1. 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood p lain = max oints
Entrenchment / floodplain access
d 0-5 0-4 0-2
(deeply entrenche
= 0; freguentfl _aoding = max points
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
(no wetlands= 0; large adjacent wetlands - max point )
x? 9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization -- 0; natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
0-S
0-4
6-4
(extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment= max points)
1 _ Size &' diversity of channel bed substrate - 0-4' 0-5
fine; homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes max p

12 Evidence of channel incision'or widening-
0-5
0-4
0 5
' (deeply incised 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
Pr
e
f
il
e
B
k=f

13 -
esenc
s. _
o
-majar
a
ur
an
- 0=5 -
..._0?5
e=
_ severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks == max oints
s"
141, Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots - 0 dense roots throughout= max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0
5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max rots - ,-
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
no riffleslri les or, opools = 0;lwell-deveio ed -max" Dints

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat - 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max Points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
_ no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous canopy - max points)
14 Substrate em
beddedness ]A p _ 4 0-4
_
(deeply. embedded - 0-, loose structure = max -~

12- Presence of stream invertebrates

0 - 4

0 - 5

0 5
no evidence = 0• com
mon, numerous es= max points
Presence of amphibians 0 4 0 4 0 4
(no evidence - 0; common, numerous tomes max points
V Presence of f=ish 0 4 0- 4 0- 4
no evidence 0; common, numerous types max ponrts)
Evidence of wildlife use
0-.6
0-5
0- 5
(no evidence = O; abundant evidence = max points

4
3
1
4
4
2
l
0
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
3
1
1
0
4
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): December 30, 2008
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project, Charlotte, NC -
Perennial RPW Stream A
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. N35.22580° T, Long. W80.82472° .
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Sugar Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
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., oEsite 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: January 9, 2009
Field Determination. Date(s): December 30, 2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Ca "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.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There iee "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
[] TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
fl, Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
t 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
Q Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
^W 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: 311 linear feet: 8-12 width (ft) and/or 0,07 acres.
Wetlands: 0.00 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Sena
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HI.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.L; otherwise, see Section M.B. below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbodya is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody fins a significant nexus vvith a T-NW. if the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the signiffeant nexus Avalwition ust
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section M.B.1 for
the tributary, Section IILB.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IH.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size:
Drainage area: .. 1 °`?S'r
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick_Ltsf tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are klcc)(is river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ?i.tsb river miles from RPW.
Project waters are L't?ek7s aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are lslek`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:
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: ?? his).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel . ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/l/6 cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: '.
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: PICRI ='List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pis
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):
? OHWW (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
[]', High Tide Line indicated by: M Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: k! . Explain:
Surface flow is: __71-4-
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: f7i- ? . 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 ??]s river miles from TNW.
Project waters are' s aerial (straight) miles from'INW.
Flow is from:.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the W @W 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 typelpercent 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 PxCkLlSt
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size fin acres) Directly abuts? (YM 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 cant' 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:
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:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream A was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited a strong bed and bank, strong flow, substrate
consisting of silt to small boulders underlined with bedrock, and an average ordinary high water width of 8-12 feet.
Biological sampling within Stream A resulted in a weak presence of amphibians and benthic macroinvertebrates. Due to the
evidence of typical year-round flow, Stream A was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW) according to
USACE/EPA guidance (AIDF, Perennial Stream A). Stream A scored 63 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet and 39 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating
perennial status (SCPI, 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: 311 linear feet 8-12 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
' Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 1II.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
e an sa rlacen to u no t
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.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
a ! 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):"
ffl- which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
1P Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Crops Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent vOth the process described in the Corps/EPA MemoranduntRegarding CWA Act Jurisdiction FollowingRapanos.
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:
[l Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
r; Other non-wetland waters: acres,
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements,
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakestponds: 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
d 1'Q-1'Pll97 tiw.. - ?u ib ilvll
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicantlconsultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s), Cite scale & quad name:USGS 7.5' Charlotte East, NC Topographic Quadrangle,dated 1991.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:NRCS Soil. Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
Sheet No. 7, dated 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:
r] Applicable/supporting case law:
[] Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
ffl Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project Date: 12/30/08
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Storm Water Services County: Mecldenburg
Investigator(s): Thomas Blackwell and Jamie MacMartin State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP1
If needed, explain on reverse.
urn=TeTinN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 leer negundo tree FACW 9
2 Prunus serotina tree FACU 10
3 Cercis canadensis tree FACU 11
4 Ligustrum lucidum sapling FAC 12
5 Ilex opaca shurb FAC- 13
6 Sinitax rorundifolia vine FAC 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
50%
Remarks:
50% of the dominant plant species are FAC or wetter.
uvnRnl nr:v
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetiand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 1 of 2 1/712009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cecil-Urban land complex (CuB), 2-8 percent slope. Drainage Class Well-drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T is Aa ludults Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-1011 B 10YR 4/4 N/A N/A Sandy loam
10-20" B 10YR 3/3 N/A N/A Sandy clay loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gley
ad or ow roma Colors Other (aplain in Remaiks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric 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 2/92
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2 1/7/2009
Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Proiect No. 2008-2535
4r
Photograph B. View of Perennial RPW Stream A culvert, facing upstream.
Photograph A. View of Perennial RPW Stream A, facing downstream.
Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Project No. 2008-2535

,,yy- 1a.SCAT!`a
QUIM
l ichacl K Raslcy, Gov, crnor
Lisbetlt C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrty J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 3, 2006
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbcck, Administrator
Office of Archives and History
Division of f-Estorical Resources
David Brook, Director
Matt Jenkins
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Re: Storm Drainage Improvements, Louise Avenue, CWS No. 2006-1322, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
ER 06-1645
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for your letter of June 14, 2006, concerning the above project.
have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no his tonic resources that would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the prolec asp .
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, envitonmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
fn r%
,1 y
Peter Sandbeck
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION gl 4763/733 8653
507 N. Blount Street Ralci t NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733 RESTORATION G547/715?4801
515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733-
SURvEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Strec4 Raleigh, NC 4617 Mary Service Ccnter, Raleigh NC 276944617 [phone]/7154801
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Natural Resources Planning and Conservation
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda Pearsall, Director
Dee Freeman, Secretary
Mr. Jamie MacMartin
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
January 12, 2009
Subject: Seigle Avenue Culvert Replacement Project; Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
CWS Project No. 2008-2535
Dear Mr. MacMartin:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the.project area.
Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not
necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted-for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural
areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our
Program also has a new webs.ite that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location:
<Iittp:Hnlipweb.enr.state.ne.us/nhis/public/gmap75_main.plitm1>. The user name is "public" and the
password is "heritage". You may want to click "Help" for more information.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. This service provides site
specific information on GIS layer's with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NC OneMap website provides Element Occurrence.(EO) ID
numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then encouraged to contact the Natural Heritage
Program, for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
NHP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by
NHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit <www.nconemap.com>, then click
on "FTP Data Download", and then "nheo:zip" [to the right of "Natural heritage Element Occurrences"]
You may also e-mail NC OneMap at <dataq-n,ncmail.net> for inore information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8597 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program One
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 No>rthCaroli.na
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.oneNCNaturally.org ?Oj,Q414 iff
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled l t0% Post Consumer Paper Noturol Resources Planning and Conservation