20090457 Ver 1_401 Application_20090409

09-0457
Letter of Transmittal
Inc.
9751 S *S&ME
9751 Southern Pine Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
[phone] fax
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604-2260
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
? Shop drawings
® Copy of letter
DATE: April 17, 2009 I JOB NO: 1357-09-012
ATTENTION: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
RE: Emergency Replacement Culvert - NWP No 14

® Attached ? Under separate cover via the following items:
? Prints ? Plans ? Draft ? Specifications
? Report
COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION
5 4-17-09 1 WQC/Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Package
1 4/17109 2 Check for $240.00 WQC Processing Fee
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
® For approval
? As requested
? FORBIDS DUE: I I_
? For your use
? For review and comment ?
? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS: Attached please find the above. Please let Joey or I know if you have questions, Thank you.
-Suzanne Knudsen
SIGN:
COPY TO: File
®r
X333
,nytl?pc;
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE.
This Letter of Transmittal and the documents accompanying this Letter of Transmittal contain information from S&ME, Inc., which is confidential and legally
privileged. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named on this Letter of Transmittal. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on these documents is strictly prohibited.
S&ME SFG-001
(Rev. 04/04)
S&ME
April 17, 2009 0 4 5
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers` . ,?
Asheville Regulatory Field Offices., 0p9
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
_
Attention: Ms. Amanda Jones
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Reference: Application for Nationwide Permit No. 14 and
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Emergency Culvert Replacement
724 West Rocky River Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-09-012
Dear Ms. Jones and Ms. Karoly:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is submitting this application for impacts to waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands, in accordance with Department of the Army Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 14 - Linear Transportation Projects, along with supporting documentation for
a verification of jurisdictional boundaries. S&ME has been retained by the City of
Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS), the applicant for the proposed project, to
provide services related to acquisition of the NWP and corresponding North Carolina
Water Quality Certification (WQC) pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The project will
involve emergency replacement of an undersized, reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with a
double box culvert at a road crossing of Rockland Drive, adjacent to its intersection with
West Rocky River Road. The double box culvert will accommodate flow as well as
satisfy future road and sidewalk improvements associated with the Newell-South
Neighborhood Improvement Project (NIP) in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. In support of this NWP No. 14 application, please find enclosed the following:
• Appendix I: Agent Authorization Form and Pre-Construction Notification (PCN);
• Appendix II: Figures - Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map
(Figure 2), 2005 Aerial Photograph (Figure 3), USDA Soil Survey Map (Figure
4), Approximate Waters of the U.S. Map (Figure 5);
• Appendix III: Stream Crossing Plan and Profile (Exhibit 1);
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
Nationwide Permit No. 1 4/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-09-012
Emergency Culvert Replacement. 724 West Rocky River Road April 17, 2009
• Appendix IV: Site Photographs;
• Appendix V: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form; and
• Appendix VI: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet, N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Stream
Identification Form; and
• Check for $240 (DWQ processing fee).
The proposed project will occur within the footprint of the existing road crossing.
However, copies of this PCN, along with a check for the processing fee, are being
provided to DWQ for written concurrence because the proposed project will require an
additional 13 linear feet (If) of impact to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (streams)
associated with the future road and sidewalk improvements to Rockland Drive.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace an undersized RCP that routes a
jurisdictional stream under Rockland Drive and eventually into Toby Creek to the east.
Due to the undersized RCP, the stream floods Rockland Drive during periods of high rain
and causes hazards including erosion and exposure of telephone, water, and natural gas
utility lines. The downstream portion of the RCP is perched approximately one foot
above the water surface, impeding movement of aquatic life. The proposed project
entails replacing the 401f, 36-inch RCP with a 531f double box culvert that will
accommodate flow, future road widening, and sidewalk improvements associated with
the Newell-South NIP. The double box culvert was designed to accommodate the 25-
year storm in accordance with the Charlotte Department of Transportation standards for
residential neighborhood culverts. One box will be buried one foot below the streambed
to carry base flow and allow for aquatic movement. The second box will be at a higher
elevation to carry storm water flow.
The proposed project also entails repair of the exposed telephone, water, and natural gas
utilities, in addition to replacing an existing 30-foot riprap apron located at the
downstream portion of the RCP. The location of the project area is depicted on the Site
Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the appropriate portions of the Derita, N.C (1993) and
Harrisburg N.C. (1993) USGS Topographic Maps (Figure 2), a 2005 Aerial Photograph
(Figure 3), and the USDA Soil Survey Map (Figure 4), included in Appendix II.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
On April 9, 2009 Ms. Suzanne Knudsen, an S&ME wetland professional, visited the
study area and conducted a jurisdictional delineation to determine location of waters of
the U.S., including wetlands. The study area was limited to approximately 100 feet
upstream and 100 feet downstream of the existing road crossing on Rockland Drive.
Representative photographs of the study area are attached (Appendix IV).
The delineation was conducted utilizing currently accepted methods for wetland
determination, as set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
which states that under normal circumstances, an area must demonstrate the presence of
three components to be considered jurisdictional: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric
Nationwide Permit No.14/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-09-012
Emeruency Culvert Replacement, 724 West Rocky River Road April 17, 2009
soils, and 3) wetland hydrology. Furthermore, stream assessments were conducted in
accordance with DWQ and USACE guidelines.
Field review identified one jurisdictional, relatively permanent water, (Stream 1) that
exhibited perennial/year round flow within the study area. Stream 1 parallels West
Rocky River Road and flows under Rockland Drive through a 401f, 36-inch RCP. The
study area is located within a maintained lawn and scattered trees along Stream 1. Figure
5, Appendix II, depicts the delineated area within the study area. An Approved
Jurisdictional Determination form was prepared and is incorporated with this PCN for
verification (Appendix V). Completed DWQ Stream Identification Forms and USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets are included in Appendix VI.
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
The proposed project will require 13 if of permanent stream impact to upstream portions
of Stream I located outside of the existing footprint. The permanent impact is associated
with replacing the existing 401f culvert with a 53 If double box culvert that is necessary
to effectively widen Rockland Drive. Temporary stream impacts of approximately 20 if
upstream of the road crossing are necessary for the temporary placement of a coffer dam,
and a pump around and temporary impacts of approximately 10 If downstream of the
road crossing is necessary for placement of a rock check dam. These temporary in-
stream structures will divert stream flow during construction.
Plan, profile, and stream crossing details for the proposed project are included in
Appendix III. The location of Stream 1 is depicted on the attached Figure 5 (Appendix
II). No jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the study area.
PROTECTED SPECIES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Protected Species
S&ME's review of potential protected species habitat entailed a literature review of
existing records obtained from federal and state sources to identify documented records
of protected species. The USFWS list of federally protected species (updated May 10,
2007) was consulted for a listing of protected species documented within Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. This review identified three protected plant species and one
animal. Listed fauna and flora and their federal status are identified in Table 1.
Explanations of rankings are included at the end of the table.
Nationwide Permit No.14/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-09-012
Emergency Culvert Replacement, 724 West Rocky River Road April 17, 2009
Table 1: Federally Protected Flora and Fauna Summary
Species Federal Rank" County Status Habitat Present
Helianthus schweinitzii

Schweinitz's sunflower E Current No
Lasmigona decorata

Carolina heelsplitter E Historical No
Echinacea laevigata

Smooth coneflower E Current No
Rhus michauxii

Michaux's sumac E Historical No
E = Endangered
As part of the literature review, S&ME also consulted the NCNHP Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) database Virtual Workroom and Element Occurrence (EO)
Database for a listing of EO's of endangered or threatened species within or near the
project area. This review did not identify EO's pertaining to federally protected species
within a two-mile radius of the project area.
S&ME completed a field reconnaissance of the project area on April 9, 2009. This effort
revealed the project area consists of maintained lawn, scattered trees along Stream 1, and
severe erosion along Rockland Dri ve. Based on the level of recent and continued
disturbance, the project area was not considered to provide potential habitat for protected
terrestrial species with a likelihood of occurring in Mecklenburg County.
The proposed project crosses Stream 1, an unnamed tributary of Toby Creek, and will not
impact streams that drain to known populations of Carolina heelsplitter or its designated
Critical Habitat. No documented occurrences of Carolina heelsplitter are known for
Toby Creek or its tributaries. Accordingly, the proposed project is not anticipated to
impact this species or its designated Critical Habitat.
A copy of this NWP No. 14 application was provided to the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Asheville
Field Office on April 17, 2009 requesting their review of records they may have in
regards to the proposed project and to provide comments regarding agency interests.
Cultural Resources
Due to time constraints associated with the emergency culvert replacement, a copy of this
NWP No. 14 application was provided to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) on April 17, 2009 requesting their review of records regarding cultural,
archaeological, or historical resources in or near the project area and to provide written
comments regarding the interests of their agency.
4
Nationwide Permit No.14/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-09-012
Emergency Culvert Replacement, 724 West Rocky River Road April 17, 2009
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The proposed project involves impacts to less than 1501f of stream. The proposed
project will cross Stream 1 at a near perpendicular angle. Except for an additional 13 If,
the culvert replacement and road and sidewalk improvements will occur within the
footprint of the existing road crossing and will improve current stream function.
Permanent impacts will be located within upstream portions of the road crossing as to not
disturb the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100-year
floodplain and the 100-foot Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM)
Buffer of Toby Creek. Impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent
practicable and have been limited to the minimum necessary to facilitate road widening
and sidewalk improvements for the Newell-South NIP.
To prevent sedimentation of downstream portions of Stream 1, construction will be
conducted in the dry through the use of a coffer dam, a pump around, and a rock check
dam. The bottom of the base flow box culvert will be placed at a one-foot depth below
the natural stream bottom to maintain aquatic passage during low flow conditions and
efforts will be made to maintain the existing channel slope after construction.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Following construction, disturbed areas will be restored to original grade and elevation.
The proposed project should not result in permanent changes in pre-construction
elevation contours or stream dimension, pattern or profile. Excess material will be
removed to a high ground disposal area.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices outlined in the most recent version of
the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" and
approved by the local governing authority will be in compliance with specifications
governing the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices to comply with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard.
Sediment and erosion control measures placed in waters will be removed and the original
grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources has released the
project. Impacts have been avoided and minimized, and appropriate measures will be
taken during construction to allow flow and circulation patterns of waters of the U.S. to
remain unaffected. After construction, disturbed areas will be seeded and restored.
The proposed project is a municipal repair project with insufficient right-of-way to
develop stormwater facilities. Furthermore, the proposed project will result in an
additional 0.0134-acre of impervious surface (10.81 % increase) in the 0.124 acre project
area and a minimal increase in relation to the 211-acre drainage area.
No permanent or temporary impacts to wetlands are anticipated.
MITIGATION
Based on conversations with the USACE for similar projects, we anticipate that
appropriate mitigation for the proposed project can be satisfied by the avoidance and
minimization procedures implemented during the design phase of the proposed project.
Nationwide Permit No.14/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-09-012
Emergency Culvert Replacement, 724 West Rocky River Road April 17, 2009
Impacts to Stream 1 were minimized by implementing the road and sidewalk
improvements within the footprint of the existing stream crossing. The widening will
occur within upstream portions of Stream 1 to remain outside of the 100-year FEMA
floodplain and 100-foot SWIM buffer of Toby Creek. The stream crossing of Rockland
Drive will improve stream function and flow. Original grades and contours will be
restored and disturbed areas seeded.
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your written
concurrence with this NWP No. 14 permit application. If we can provide additional
information or answer questions you may have, please feel free to contact us at
704.523.4726.
Sincerely,
S&ME
J La ler, W.S. Mic ael Wolfe
Natural Resources Project Manager Natural Resources Department Manager
Senior Reviewed by Lisa J. Beckstrom, C.E., C.W.B.
Attachments
cc: Mr. Isaac Hinson, Charlotte Storm Water Services
Mr. Peter Sandbeck, State (North Carolina) Historic Preservation Office
Mr. Brian Cole, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office
Mr. Harry LeGrand, Jr., North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
JOUMW/slk S:\1357\PROJECTS\2009\09-012 Rocky River Road Culvert
APPENDIX 1
Agent Authorization Form and Pre-Construction Notification
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Datee: Aprff 2G, 2009
S& lB NGje € e: Emmgency Ww Rcolac nt
Type of.Pr'i ject. Nationwide l' ii<No. 14 and Jurisdictional Ueterminatiaa
Lacy on: Chariotte, , or& Caoh .
Frop?r?y Ckwn?rl?Ee?r?sentative lnk3ntrif?'?s?cr
Bu?zittess?acr?e:
Matg Address: (D? S? ' c,? e e >L G( c r s ?k L. _ 2- City, State, Zip Code: --?7171
(7c4? 31o-41-1
Telephone No. ,
Contact: -
Agent Information
Btis riess blame: '&Mt, tnc_
Street Address: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
City, State, Zip Code: Charlotte, NC 28273
Telephone No. 704,523.4726
Cvnt t: Joey Lawler
Authorization.'— l- on behalf of
(Contact Si sture) --- -
C u ?,?? c ?? ? ru`t _- hereby authorize
(Property Owner/Representative Information)
S&ME to act as agent widi the USACC in connection with the above-
mentioned project.
00-0457
O?0 W ATF9QG
Im o -c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification C Form
A. A Reant Information All !

1.
Processing W Wb

Ir A it 1_7
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit ?.
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NWP No. 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
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 1h
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: Emergency Culvert Replacement
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name: Autumnwood
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Kao Vang and Houa Vang and Mecklenburg County
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 18084/PG 879 and 1 8 54 3/6 1 4
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: 724 West Rocky River Road and 800 Rockland Drive
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina 28213
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify:
4b. Name: Isaac Hinson, PWS
4c. Business name
(if applicable): 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: Joey Lawler, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable): S&ME, Inc.
5c. Street address: 9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no.: 704-523-4726
5f. Fax no.: 704-525-3953
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 04917255, 04920101
Latitude: 35.28326°N Longitude: -
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 80.74913°W
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: respectively, 6.69 and 7.24 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to UT of Toby Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: 13-17-5-4, Class C
2c. River basin: Yadkin River Basin
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:
According to the Standard Classification System for the Mapping of Land Use and Land Cover, the study area consists of
the following Land Cover categories: 312 - Unmanaged Herbaceous Cover; 411 - Oak-Hickory and Oak-Chestnut
Forests; and 53 - Linear Drainage. The study area included the following Land Use categories: 1.02.02 - Road
Transporation Facilities and 1.06 Communication and Utilities (telephone, water, and natural gas easements).
And the vicinity of the study area consists of the following Land Cover categories: 1 - Heavily Developed, 411 - Oak-
Hickory and Oak-Chestnut Forests, 52 - Inland water bodies, and 53 - Linear Drainage. The vicinity of the study area
includes the following Land Use categories: 1.01.01.02 Low Density Detached Dwellings and 1.01.01.03 Medium Density
Detached Dwellings.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
No wetlands were identified in the study area.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Stream 1 extended for approximately 212 linear feet in the study area.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace an undersized reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that routes a
jurisdictional stream under Rockland Drive and eventually into Toby Creek to the east. Due to the undersized RCP, the
stream floods Rockland Drive during periods of high rain and causes hazards including erosion and exposure of
telephone, water, and natural gas utility lines.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Stream 1 parallels West Rocky River Road and flows under Rockland Drive through a 40 linear foot, 36-inch RCP. The
downstream portion of the RCP is perched approximately one foot above the water surface, impeding movement of
aquatic life. The proposed project entails replacing the 40 If, 36-inch RCP with a 53 If double box culvert that will
accommodate flow, future road widening, and sidewalk improvements associated with the Newell-South Neighborhood
Improvement Project (NIP). The double box culvert was designed to accommodate the 25-year storm in accordance with
the Charlotte Department of Transportation standards for residential neighborhood culverts. One box will be buried one
foot below the streambed to carry base flow and allow for aquatic movement. The second box will be at a higher
elevation to carry storm water flow. The proposed project also entails repairing the exposed telephone, water, and
natural gas pipeline utilities in addition to replacing a 30-foot riprap apron located at the downstream portion of the
existing RCP. The proposed project will require 13 If of permanent impacts to upstream portions of Stream 1 located
outside of the existing footprint of the road crossing.
During construction, temporary impacts to approximately 30 If of Stream 1 will be necessary to construct an upstream
coffer dam, a pump around, and a downstream rock check dam within the limits of the silt fence to divert stream flow
during construction. These temporary structures will be removed after construction and orginal slope and contours
restored to pre-construction condition. Equipment used to construct the proposed project will include standard earth-
moving equipment used in road construction and road crossings.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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?
Comments:
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:
Name (if known): 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 ? Yes ? No ® Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
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 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. 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 impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? PEI T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
211. Comments: No wetlands identified in the study area.
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. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent
DWQ -non-404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Culvert UT to Toby Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ g 13
S2 ? PH T Temporary stream UT to Toby Creek ® PER ® Corps g 30
flow diversion ? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments: The proposed project will require 13 If of permanent stream impact associated with replacing the existing 40 If
culvert with a 53 If double box culvert necessary to effectively widen Rockland Drive. Temporary stream impacts of
approximately 20 If upstream of the road crossing are necessary for the temporary placement of a coffer dam, and a pump
around. Temporary impacts of approimately 10 If is necessary for placement of a rock check dam. These temporary in-
stream structures will divert stream flow during construction and will be removed after rnnOnirtinn
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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.
Open water
impact number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4E Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: No open waters are located within the study area.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or purpose 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
R 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:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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 Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ? PEI T ? Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
t7
.
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project involves impacts to less than 150 If of stream. The proposed project will cross Stream 1 at a near
perpendicular angle. Except for an additional 13 If, the culvert replacement and road and sidewalk improvements will occur
within the footprint of the existing road crossing and will improve current stream function. Permanent impacts will be located
within upstream portions of the road crossing as to not disturb the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
designated 100-year floodplain and the 100-foot Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Buffer of Toby Creek.
Impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and have been limited to the minimum necessary to
facilitate road widening and sidewalk improvements for the Newell-South NIP.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
To prevent sedimentation of downstream portions of Stream 1, construction will be conducted in the dry through the use of a
coffer dam, a pump around, and a rock check dam. The bottom of the base flow box culvert will be placed at a one-foot depth
below the natural stream bottom to maintain aquatic passage during drought or low flow conditions and efforts will be made to
maintain the existing channel slope after construction. Following construction, disturbed areas will be restored to original grade
and elevation. The proposed project should not result in permanent changes in pre-construction elevation contours or stream
dimension, pattern or profile. Excess material will be removed to a high ground disposal area.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" and approved by the local governing authority will be in compliance with
specifications governing the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices to
comply with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard. Sediment and erosion control measures placed in waters will be
removed and the original grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
Impacts have been avoided and minimized, and appropriate measures will be taken during construction to allow flow and
circulation patterns of waters of the U.S. to remain unaffected. After construction, disturbed areas will be seeded and
restored.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
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 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. 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).
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. 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? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The proposed project is a municipal
repair project with insufficient right-of-way to develop stormwater facilities. Furthermore, the proposed project will result
in an additional 0.0134-acre of impervious surface (10.81% increase) in the 0.124 acre project area and a minimal
increase in relation to the 211-acre drainage area.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of 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)?
1c. 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 ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
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.
The proposed project will not generate wastewater.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. El Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A copy of this PCN was provided to USFWS Asheville Field Office on April 17, 2009. Field review of the study area did
not indicate the presence of endangered species listed for Mecklenburg County or habitat. The study area and vicinity
are not located in a Designated Critical Habitat. Review of Element Occurances on the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Virtual Workroom did not reveal occurrences of federally listed species
within a two-mile radius from 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?
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/efh-coral/ims/viewer.htm
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 copy of this PCN was provided to SHPO on April 17, 2009.
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? The proposed project will be constructed upstream of
Stream 1 and outside of the 100-year FEMA floodplain. http://polaris.mecklenburgcountync.gov
Joey Lawler, PWS r A7
' '
Applicant/Agent
s Printed Name p icant/ gen
ignature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
APPENDIX 11
Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 - 2005 Aerial Photograph
Figure 4 - USDA Soil Survey Map
Figure 5 - Approximate Waters of the U.S. Map
"?o t �? �5\tai !_ ,T.y„�--,•'�' '/'�
y'� �� h ' � '`. --\ � � •O��d. �`�`(\\fie - " r''`l jj � � +" ,:! + d
//°Pat';p< � , d,�� � {• y '
+sem +� i ✓S� ``y
'A
�+ 7-5.7
- - r
IN
1 4111
°j7/9�C.�.uie
\
f Rp r �
� jJ1
eve �1
e • CLiy-
+ �- �dl rl Y I"if .• Yi S�a s �e1�,*�.j�, 'y'� q f fr. -�..
G<.aY=D,• jo • f. + =,t, aLo fr, fff s - J
VO
pgh:Rd���'�, t,-' per.
Project Location i ,!._� •`r,;
REFERENCE: USGS 1993 DERITA [NC] AND HARRISBURG [NC] QUAD SHEETS �- • ggCC r,'
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) ` -
DEPARTMENT WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR0 `, 500 1 ;000 1,500
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
SCALE: AS SHOWN 'FIGURE
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NO.
DATE: 4-10- - S&ME Emergency Culvert Replacement
DDH
DRAWN BY 724 West Rock River Road
CHECKED BY: rir r Charlotte, NC
1—LJ B PROJECT No: 1357-09-012

w ,
es\eY P\an ?? *`? ?r r N 1 X14
? A
W
41
a
a
p
rig.
W Rock
y-River Rd -
.'b
X" T?
Al.
Y
.n „
0
w
a
4 pills f .,? a k W ,
Agw,
} am r
P- 4AV
Approximate Project Area.
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) ?•' + p6?'rd` '
DEPARTMENT WEB SITE PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR OO ' '`2OO ±y.U 300
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. 'Fee
CALE: 1" = 200, FIGURE
2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NO.
ATE: 4-10-2009
`Emergency Culvert y Replacement
PAWN BY: DDH 724 West Rock River Road
NECKED BY: LJB PROJECT NO: Charlotte NC
1357-09-012
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WERE DELINEATED BY S&ME tl N
PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELD ON 4/9/2009 USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB- 0,
`
METERACCURACY. THESE BOUNDARIES HAVE NEITHER BEEN SURVEYED BY
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR NOR VERIFIED BY THE USACE"
u #
All. 3
Approximate Culvert W_Rocky_River=Rd=
Replacement Project Area -
See Exhibit 1, Appendix III
r
1 Stream 1
` 1 Perennial RPW
I I 1Aw
U
e' � da-
nk
k'
Approximate Study Area
Stream
2- foot Contours
- 10-foot Contours
REFERENCE: 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
THE ABOVE BACKGROUND LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT
LIDAR CONTOURS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE NCDOT GIS DEPARTMENT WEBSITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS
MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER 0 25 50 75 100
USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY
FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
Feet
SCALE: 1„ = 50, APPROXIMATE WATERS FIGURE
DATE: OF THE U.S. MAP NO
4-10-2009
DRAWN BY: DDH Emergency Culvert Replacement
*S&ME 724 West Rock River Road
CHECKED BY: WWW.SMEINC.COM Charlotte NC
LJB PROJECT NO: 1357-09-012

APPENDIX 111
Stream Crossing Plan and Profile
91LL-zz9 (VOL) :3NO14d
L&M'O'N'3U0IWVH0 31YO
e00d HUM 10 03AO"V
Kid

la3n?np

1
009 3L1f1S '3M0 t131N30 LL 0OZ9 AB 032730 A9 GHVd3Hd 3 n I a a Q N G ? N 0 0 d 0
HIB

4 KlVd3I I' QV'
p 6 sn inn 133f'Odd 1N3W3n08dWI
NOI3dIt0530 AB 31tl0 'ON N• 9 P 31275

szaAazis
QOOMHHOI3N
H1nOS-333M3N

133HS
O O O O O

u
? ?
S r
y P ?
J yW
t?
Sir ?
F a

rR ? ?

Y t ?. Y

W
ti
J
H33yO,(gO1 _. N .
f r
W
o ??Q
a m o a ?a oN
Q3? CW '_
22
:z Z3
Laot;
?? W! Fn AW 8? ~?a3W3 y?j WWW .. cz t; I ? 5W? C=i 4,6 I??Qh WW 2 R` t; LLJ
??OS ,2?
aZ ? ? C?UH ?aW? ? yWC9?
310,?04
YQU„W)j2 yO ';f yWF Luc,
tiW
awe
I WCZ4 W
W6W
?C O O o?b
LLJ
I ar^W gm? W? ?? Cqi O?? + }
*N ?IU F .
t e '
i
` r
3Nb0 ON1f1?? _.
3.560 ,6S 9 N
PFfI
zw
I
I
s
I
I Ol
O?N
P ?
g Lu
I Y3p?
ti
£g

?m W)
+
Ln N
O k _`
LU
ti
O
T.

W
O
O
M
APPENDIX IV
Site Photographs

,+01
Photo 3: Area of erosion and
Taken by: SLK

• ,1 w!r ^
owl
Photo 4: Exposed natural gas pipeline.
Emergency Culvert Replacement
Checked by: LJB/MW 724 West Rocky River Road
Nl-
S ME
Charlotte, North Carolina
Date: April 10, 2009 Project No.: 1357-09-012 Photo Pag
1
Photo 2: Downstream of Stream 1 facing perched RCP.
Photo 1: Facing downstream along upstream portions of
Stream 1 at area of the 13 If of permanent impact.
Photo 6: Wooded area along Stream 1.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX V
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Emergency Culvert Replacement
2. Name of Property owner/Applicant: Charlotte Storm Water Services
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: S&ME, Inc. Attn: Joey Lawler, PWS
*Agent Authorization needs to be attached (See Appendix I)
4. Related/Previous Action ID Number(s): None
5. Site Address: 724 West Rocky River Road and Rockland Drive
6. Subdivision Name: Autumnwood
7. City: Charlotte
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: 35.28326°N Long: -80.74913°W (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: 1993 Derita, N.C. and 1993 Harrisburg, N.C.
11. Waterway: Stream 1 drains into Toby Creek to the east.
12. Watershed: Yadkin-Pee Dee
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:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:ASHEVILLE FIELD REGULATORY OFFICE
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STREAM I
State:NORTH CAROLINA County/parish/borough: MECKLENBURG City: CHARLOTTE
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.28326° N, Long. 80.74913° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: TOBY CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: ROCKY RIVER
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040105 (ROCKY RIVER)
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required)
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Z Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 212 linear feet: 6-17 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.I and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.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 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 has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
I. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s 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: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): .
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: .
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
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:
I. 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.
Q 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 1 POSSESSED GEOMORPHIC FEATURES CONSISTENT WITH A PERENNIAL
CHANNEL (SEE ATTACHED NC DWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORM FOR STREAM 1).
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):
0 Tributary waters: 212 linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
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
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED IUVTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
18 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: S&ME, INC.
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.
ED U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1993 DERITA AND HARRISBURG [NC] 1:24,000 QUAD SHEET
(FIGURE 2).
Eg USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: USDA SSURGO DATASET FOR MECKLENBURG
COUNTY (FIGURE 4).
0 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):2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (FIGURE 3).
or ® Other (Name & Date):SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (4-9-09).
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:
APPENDIX VI
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
DWQ Stream Identification Form
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AQV
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Charlotte 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (Suzanne Knudsen)
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/9/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 04:1037pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 1 6. River basin: Rocky
7. Approximate drainage area: 212 acres 8. Stream order: 2
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.28326°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.74913°W
Method location determined ?GPS ?Topo Sheet ?Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) .Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location)
At Rockland Drive near its intersection with Rocky River Road
14. Proposed channel work (if any): culvert replacement
15. Recent weather conditions: cold, dry
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny warm
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area: 2.9 acres
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: yes
50 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Forested 30 % Cleared/Logged 0 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 6-17' 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 2-8'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (24%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
56
Comments: Perennial channel
Evaluators Signature: L?J ei"?-(
Date: 4/9/2009
This channel evaluation form is in nded to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
CHA
ACTERI
TICS ECORE GION POINT RANGE
S
R
S CORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
V
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
04
0-4
0-2
3
y no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
?i 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 4
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6
-4
0
0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5 3
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

y+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
a 13 Presence of major bank failures

severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
14 Root depth and density on banks
H
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
vD 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0
-5
0-4
0-5 3
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
E-4 17 Habitat complexity

little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
E-4 18 Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
19 Substrate embeddedness *

(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max NA 0-4 0-4 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0
-4
0-5
0-5 1
21 Presence of amphibians

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
22 Presence of fish
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 04 0
-4
0-4 2
pq 23 Evidence of wildlife use

(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 56
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4/9/2009 Project Emergency Culvert Replacement Latitude: 35.28326°N
Evaluator: S&ME (Suzanne Knudsen) Site: Stream 1 Longitude: 80.74913°W
Total Points 48
Stream is at least intermittent
if 2 19 or perennial if z 30 County: Mecklenburg Other

e.g. Quad Name.'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 27.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence - 3
4. 01 texture or stream su strate sorting 3
C IVe fe IC 00 p aln 2
epos) Iona ars or enc es
3
Braided c anne
---
--8-.e? cent a uvla epos) s -- -
3
a. Natural evees
10. ea cuts ?
Gra- e con ro s 1 5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
econ or greater or er on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
a. arc unuiies die out tdteu, see ulscusslons in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 11 5 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1
rganlc a rls Ines or pl es rac Ines 1.5
y rIC S01 S re OXlmorp IC ea UreS presen . Yes = 1.5
C. Bloloov (Subtotal = a 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 1
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2
22. Crayfish
1
23. Bivalves 0
N. Fish
25. Amphibians 0 --
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
28. Iron bacteria/fun us
0 . 3
29b. Wetland plants in streambed
-R-In -?a - -- - - - - , . . . . . FAC = 0.5;
-- _--- - - -.. •. •- r•???••w ?• ?•?+•?+???. y....w. 1c14 - iVwaea Un uJe presence o1 aquauc or wetlana plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
Perennial channel