20060501 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060324

O?O? W A T ?9QG
r
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
April 3, 2006
DWQ# 06-0501
Mecklenburg County
Mr. Brian McManus
Hoopaugh Grading Co., LLC
222 Westinghouse, Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Subject: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site, Charlotte
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. McManus:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
relocate 444 linear feet (If) of unnamed stream to Sugar Creek in order to construct the Hoopaugh
Office Building, in Mecklenburg County, as described in your application received by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) on March 26, 2006. After reviewing your application, we have determined that
this project is covered by Water Quality General Certification Number 3402, which can be viewed on -
our web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The General Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Numbers 39 once it is issued to you by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please
note that you should get any other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project,
including those required by (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, and
Water Supply Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certification will expire when the associated 404 permit expires unless
otherwise specified in the General Certification. This approval is only valid for the purpose and
design that you described in your application. If you change your project, you must notify us in
writing, and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the property
is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter; and is thereby
responsible for complying with all conditions.
In addition to the requirements of the certification, you must also comply with the following
conditions:
1., The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing once construction at the approved impact
areas has commenced.
2. A final stream relocation plan/design shall be approved, in writing, by this Office prior to the
construction of any permanent facilities at the site. The planting of native vegetation and other soft
stream bank stabilization techniques must be used where practicable instead of riprap or bier bank
No
hardening methods. NaCarolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: ncwaterquality.org FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
3. Storm water discharge structures at this site shall be constructed in a manner such that the potential 1
receiving streams (of the discharge) will not be impacted due to sediment accumulations, scouring
or erosion of the stream banks.
4. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality.
5. Continuing Compliance. The applicant (Hoopaugh Grading Co. LLC) shall conduct all activities in a
manner so as not to contravene any state water quality standard (including any requirements for
compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of
state and federal law. If DWQ determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including
the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that state or federal law is being violated, or
that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, DWQ may reevaluate and modify this
certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with such standards and
requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before codifying the certification, DWQ
shall notify the applicant and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in accordance
with 15A NCAC 21-1.0503, and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC
21-1.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to the applicant in writing, shall be
provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issued pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send
a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional
Office at 704-663-1699 or Ms. Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
, D I /?- , 4
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Ian McMillan, Wetlands Unit
Central Files
Gregg Antemann
Sincerely,
forAlan W. Klimek, P.E.

?u t l

Triage Check List
Date: 3/28/06
Project Name: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
DWQ#: 06-0501
County: Mecklenburg
Alan Johnson, Mooresville Regional Office
To:
60-day Processing Time: 3/23/06 - 5/21/06
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]

The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
11 CWS
z Carolina Wetland Services
March 20, 2006
Ms. Amanda Jones
U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (v) 2 0 () 8 Q 5 O
704-527-1133 (fax)
rF, ` QUAUTN
DENR W AT'Ft WpTER BRANCH
fps ANp ?T
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 39
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2005-1249 M=_
The Hoopaugh Grading Office Site is located on Forsyth Drive in Charlotte, North Carolina,
approximately '/2 mile north of the Westinghouse Boulevard - Nations Ford Road intersection
(Figure 1, enclosed). The purpose of this project is to expand the existing land use of the
property. Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
(CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. Please see the attached,
signed Agent Certification of Authorization Form.
Applicant Name: Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC, Mr. Brian McManus
Mailing Address: 222 Westinghouse Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-588-2284
Street Address of Project: 222 Westinghouse Blvd.
Waterway: UT to Sugar Creek
Basin: Catawba River (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N350 7' 8", W80° 54' 45"
USGS Quadrangle Name: Fort Mill, North Carolina, 1996
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is industrial with small adjacent wooded areas.
Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of kudzu (Pueraria lobata), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common blackberry (Rubus argutus), catbriar
(Smilax rotundifolia), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua),
red maple (Acer rubrum), and various grasses (Festuca spp.). According to the Soil Survey of
Mecklenburg Countyl, on-site soils consist of Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 4 to 8 percent
slopes (MeB) and Monacan soils (MO)z. Mecklenburg fine sandy loam is well drained and
1 United States Department of Agriculture, 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
z NRCS Hydric Soils of North Carolina, December 15, 1995.
CHARLOTTE:
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (V)
704-527-1133 (fax)
COLUMBIA:
322A SOUTHLAKE DRIVE, SUITE 2
LEXINGTON, SC 29072
803-358-0102 (V)
803-753-9639 (fax)
RALEIGH:
8311 BRIER CREEK PARKWAY
SUITE 105-126
RALEIGH, NC 27617
919-932-2197 (V)
WWW CWS-INC.NET
March 20, 2006
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 2 of 4
exhibits slow permeability, while Monacan soils are somewhat poorly drained and exhibit
moderate permeability.
Jurisdictional Delineation
On January 23, 2006, CWS's Ron Johnson, WPIT and Matt Jenkins determined and classified on-
site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Routine
On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual .3 There are two jurisdictional wetland areas located within the property
boundary. Routine On-Site Data Forms representative of Wetlands AA - BB and non jurisdictional
upland areas are enclosed (DPI and DP2). The boundary of these wetland areas were flagged and
surveyed with a sub-meter GPS unit. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were classified according to
recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)4 and USACE guidance. NCDWQ
Stream Classification Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets for Streams A
and B are enclosed (SCP1 and SCP2).
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are two jurisdictional stream
channels (Streams A and B) located within the project area (Figure 1, enclosed). Streams A and B
are an unnamed tributaries to Sugar Creek. Sugar Creek is in the Catawba River basin
(HU# 03050103)5 and is classified as "Class C" by the NCDWQ.
Stream A flows along the southern portion of the property boundary until its convergence with
Stream B (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A is approximately 532 linear feet and was evaluated to
be Unimportant Intermittent. This channel conveys a large amount of stormwater during high
flow events; however, persistent flow and pools are not present during normal conditions. This
reach exhibited an average ordinary high water width of 3 to 4 feet, weak sinuosity, and substrate
consisting of silt to coarse sand. Unimportant Intermittent Stream A scored 32 out of a possible
100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 22 out of 71 possible
points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCPI, enclosed). Photographs of
Unimportant Intermittent Stream A are enclosed as Photographs A and B. On December 7, 2005,
Mr. Alan Johnson with the NCDWQ - Mooresville Regional Office visited the site with Gregg
Antemann, PWS of CWS, and confirmed the classification of this channel as Unimportant
Intermittent.
Stream B flows along the western portion of the property until its off-site confluence with Sugar
Creek (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream B is approximately 260 linear feet and was evaluated to be
Perennial. This reach exhibited average ordinary high water widths of 5 to 7 feet, moderate
sinuosity, and substrate consisting of silt to small cobble. Perennial Stream B scored 59 out of a
possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 34.5 out of 71
possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP2, enclosed). A photograph of
Perennial Stream B is enclosed as Photograph C.
Wetlands AA and BB are located adjacent to Perennial Stream B and are approximately 0.08 and
0.01 acre in size, respectively. Dominant vegetation in these areas includes sweetgum, tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), black willow (Salix nigra), soft stem rush (Juncus effusus), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), and various sedges (Carex spp.). These areas exhibited gleyed soils
(Gleyl 2.5/10Y), inundation to 2 inches, and saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil
3 Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
4 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999. Stream Classification Method. Version 2.0.
5 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
March 20, 2006
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 3 of 4
profile. A Routine On-Site Determination Form representative of these wetland areas is enclosed
(DPI). Photographs of Wetlands AA and BB are enclosed as Photographs C and D, respectively.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on January 24, 2006 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, of archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. In a response letter dated February 27, 2006 (enclosed), SHPO
stated that they "are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project."
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on
January 24, 2006 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
February 7, 2006 (enclosed), the NCNHP identified the project location as being within 500
meters of Sugar Creek, a historical location for the federally-endangered Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata). However, the NCNHP stated "this population was last found in 1918 and
is believed to be extirpated."
Purpose and Need for the Project
The current site plan proposes to grade the existing site for development. The site is the future
location for Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC and includes an office building and additional
areas for required storage of materials and equipment.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Impacts to on-site unimportant intermittent stream channels (Stream A) have been
reduced to less than 0.10 acre. The original site plan required the piping of the entire on-site
length of Stream A. A revised site plan proposes to relocate this channel in lieu of piping. In
addition, a level spreader device will be constructed at the outfall of the proposed detention basin
to provide diffuse flow. Please note that if a drainage easement is acquired through the adjacent
property, storm water will be discharged directly into a 100-year floodplain area and measures
will be taken to avoid erosion at this outfall (Figure 2, enclosed).
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable temporary impacts to Unimportant Intermittent Stream A will total approximately 444
linear feet (0.04 acre). Proposed impacts are a result of 444 linear feet of stream channel relocation.
Unimportant Intermittent Stream A will be relocated to the southern portion of the property and will
total approximately 456 linear feet (Figure 2, enclosed). On behalf of Hoopaugh Grading
Company, LLC, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application with
attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 13, and pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Water Quality Certification No. 3402 (enclosed).
Compensatory Mitigation
The newly relocated channel will be planted with bioengineering techniques (live stakes) and
matted with geotextile material. This work will include enhancing Stream A from its present
March 20, 2006
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 4 of 4
heavily urbanized state to a more natural functioning channel. This relocation will result in an
increase of 12 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at 704-527-1177 should you have any questions or comments
regarding these findings.
,Gregg C. Antemann, PWS
Principal Biologist
Matt L. Jenkins
Staff Biologist H
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Fort Mill, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 39
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
DWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1 and SCP2)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP1 and SCP2)
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP1 and DP2)
Agency Correspondence
Representative Photographs (Photographs A - D)
cc: Mr. Brian McManus, Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC
Mr. Alan Johnson, NCDWQ
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ
YA2005\Pro1ectsV005-1249 Hoopaugh Grading Office Site\PermittingW WP39reportdoc

Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Nationwide Permit No 39 Proiect No. 2005-1249
,I\ ?1 : s \`y ?'? rift spa t'fa
I fl
f s " l f`` Y 1. _ < Y j
/• l?C I?t ? I j "''fir f. ` t r
4tZ
?- ? 6 ° -` ? ? ?# ?t f ?.' I/ /j ll i+. ' ,A , ? 5 ? ????? I,.'? a l? fI`•?-t N i
?a eta ?/ ('/1 ?.q?1 / "`V ?.? t ? I ?? r'???? Y ??? ii ..^+1.•
Q•eek i `\ \? 1 ( c t t t f
?-
i t?
Water
Tank.
{
CH X
177\
+ !
i L
"dt
?%'c f ,, Y yam,. FarsyBt Df ? ?', ?"?• ? `y'
~~ ? ? k 4F ??• ???, \ r ,?._._. ? i ?~ ? ? sal f 1. i>u '
"I AP V
( ) A 7/ '?, r,' ` Nations Ford Rd Lsk, _1 ?ti
s Rd
25
J \ ?! \ Wes4nghouse Blvd
L -D
?\ l ?? +f 1171.E ?•
oe
'rAf
h ICI
,ffA ?? f ?I\ r ??- ?_ stn Z '??
l :" \ h.1 44 ! art 6CP' •?rc?' fi \ ?` • \ 11
lit A
- Jy r f JJ ! SSy r +^
\
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
3 2006
MAR 2
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Fort Mill, North Carolina, dated 1996.
Approxi pate Scale I"= 2000' utNR - WATER 013ALITY
WETLANDS k i + ;'• "rVYA' LR 6RANCH
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Project No. 2005-1249
MO?`? I MeB ` MeD Dae--- I PaE
_?' > f+1eB ?• ti) CeD2 aE1-0
Im !y
I =
MeB _ M? M J- M eB
/ MeD r MeB 0- e u
MeB MO tMeD m ' uD kE
1 CeD2 a CeB2 Ur
// MeD -
Ur Mk8 •? / { Me@ M0 ?
_ I amt • 6 GeB2 CD2
a@ I m ?J
i
PaE
<u
ti MeB
Me
"`?r\MkB e?1 (MeD-?? Pt
PaE
M C2
Wk
i
u8 Iu8 Oa6 Oa S U p DaB MeD
' /r r \\ MeD WkB 3
m
Dab 2 Ce@2 I D2 oX i?N Me[
PaE
MeB MeB Dab ti
?QUS:: MeD G¢O (,
?i
MkB \? MO CeD2 CeB2 CuB 3 0
MeB r
w II- \\ MeB`., \ McDV PaE
MkB
C_eD l
a Pt w ?d@CeB2 Pa / CeD2 r J`\\
MeB II tie •. Pt
1 0 Ur CeB2
Ir8 Q!" MeD CeD2 'Cub
MeB
MeB DaD
MeB
Ir8
MeB IrB
L/ MeB
0 Q,
_ ^ MeB MO? Q Ur (/ UL
water' f
MeD- - ?, '• I,?? B IrA Dab IrA
MeB r?
M /
MIuB 1
eB
MeB 1 Mg\\ 2?P e
LJ?. m
MeB 2
?4,/zr?4?h IrB 0 V\ -- 0
IrB ?i
/ MO ( MeB A 0 0 0\C 0 IrA
Wk8 \\ ?Ir u0 0 JJ Ur
?,(?? ? M e 8'.
MeD 'V MeD m?0 a r
4
1r6 0 MeB
\ O
MeB \ ?, I,/ ( N\=?,.,1'
' McD,L IrA IrB
NC-51 MeB ? Gl IuB
?, 0p )MO kB I uB
\ce``JJO 9
G IrB IrB ?L. IrA B
I DaD MeB
t esP - CeB2
/MO MO
DaB CeB2 MeB
a r C` Me8/" J eBk? B R
IrB
a c+ \) MO
T{.
4^ tea: ?f CeB2 MeB Ur IrB
° IrB
w• MeD MIeB w
Pineville
r
+'
-, Ak
MO MkB MeD M.
n
`?? tad {., WkE V/ MeD Iu8 WkD
x. f4 ¢ MeB, PaF
x' . „?.,??a .. • ,;,'+':,. (r C eB 2 M e B W kE
j` MeB
? MeD IrB ... \
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS Ell
NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 11, dated 1980.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000' 2006
NOTE.i. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED AND
CLASSIFIED BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. (CWS) ON JANUARY 23,2006-
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREAS WERE SURVEYED USING A SUB-METER GPS UNIT.
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.

LEGEND
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM CI IANNEL
L? JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREA
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
-? PHOTO LOCATION AND DIRECTION
I ° = 100'

ins ? S?°s?a Aaa?n??H
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
AN AND SURVEY PROVIDED BY SC I IONDROS & ASSOCIATES, ENC.,
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary
Field Map
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2005-1249
PREPARED BY DA'PE CHK E ? } AT
MLS 3X-0r 6 ?s
NOTES JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED AND
CLASSIFIED BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES. INC. (CWS) ON JANUARY 23, 2006.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREAS WERE SURVEYED USING A SUB-METER GPS UNIT.
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES I IAVE NO"L BEEN VLRIFIED BY THE USACE.
Tq 19 5
MA+? 2 3 2?G?
DENR - WATER QUALITY
,NETLMDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
LEGEND
IMPACTED STREAM CHANNEL
?. RELOCATED STREAM CHANNEL
REGRADED CONTOURS
-? JURISDICTIONAL STREAM CHANNEL
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREA
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATE SCALE I" =100'
Carolina Wetland Services
CWS 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
IEN('E. SITE PLAN AND SURVEY PROA IDI_D HY q unruniaw s- .wmrre? cc inir
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2005-1249
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED DACE
/`1L7 3.20.04 (9?,. s z61 1vo
RF-C F N ED
Office Use Only: Fonn Version April 2001
? (? 0 60 5 0 1
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Pen-nit AR 2 a ?Q06
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification oENR WgR QUALM?
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules WEWNDS DSTORMWATERBRMCH
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Water Quality Certification No. 3402
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC, Contact: Mr. Brian McManus
Mailing Address:222 Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (704 588-2666
E-mail Address:
2. Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mr. Gregg C. Antemann
Company Affiliation: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
Mailing Address: 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte NC 28273
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: reggAcws-inc.net
Page 1 of 7
III. Project Information
3
1. Name of project: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 203-055-23
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From downtown Charlotte, travel
south on Interstate 77 (I-77) to Westinghouse Blvd. exit (exit #1). Turn left onto East
Westinghouse Blvd. travel approximately 1 mile and turn left onto Nations Ford Rd. Travel
approximately 1/4 mile and turn left onto Forsyth Dr.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N35'7'8" W80° 54' 45"
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
The existing land use of the project area is industrial with small adjacent wooded areas. The
majority of the site has been cleared and graded.
7. Property size (acres): 9.7 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Sugar Creek
9. River Basin: Catawba River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin snap is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The current site plan proposes to grade the
existing site for development. The site is the future location for Hoopaugh Grading
Company LLC and includes an office building and additional areas for required storage of
materials and equipment.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: A trackhoe and typical
excavation equipment will be used for this project.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The land use surrounding the project is
mainly industrial with adjacent wooded areas.
Page 2 of 7
IV. Prior Project History
This protect has no prior history..
V. Future Project Plans
There are no future project plans for this site.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
1. Wetland Impacts

Wetland Impact

mpact
Area pact Located within

100-year r

0000-
Distance to

***
Site Number Type of Impact* (acres) Flo
lai Nearest Stream Type of Wetland
(indicate on map) (yes (linear feet)
N/A
List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: inechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For darns, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.feina.gov.
** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Type of Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on map) (linear feet) Before Impact (please specify)
4441f (before)
'
Unimportant
Stream A Temporary 4561f (after) UT to Sugar Creek 3-4 Intermittent
net gain 12 if
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
darns (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cernent wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no narne, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream narned strearn into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 444 linear feet relocated,
456 linear feet of new channel net gain of 12 linear feet
Page 3 of 7
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S. N/A
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbod
y Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on map) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)

N/A
k List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A
Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Impacts to on-site iurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Impacts to on-site unimportant intermittent stream channels (Stream A) have
been reduced to less than 0.10 acre. The original site plan required the piping of the entire
on-site length of Stream A. A revised site plan proposes to relocate this channel in lieu of
piping In addition, a level spreader device will be constructed at the outfall of the proposed
detention basin to provide diffuse flow. Please note that if a drainage easement is acquired
through the adiacent property, storm water will be discharged directly into a 100-year
floodplain area and measures will be taken to avoid erosion at this outfall (Figure 2,
enclosed).
VIII. Mitigation
The newly relocated channel will be planted with bioengineering techniques (live stakes) and
matted with geotextile material. This work will include enhancing Stream A from its present
heavily urbanized state to a more natural functioning channel. This relocation will result in
an increase of 12 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel.
Page 4 of 7
1. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify: )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 5 of 7
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers. N/A

k
Zone'
Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular trom near bank of cnannel; Gone z extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Sources of nearbv impervious cover include roads, driveways, and rooftops. This project will
cause an increase in the impervious coverage of the project area by approximately 3.9 acres. A
level spreader will be constructed at the outfall of the detention basin to provide diffuse flow.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatinent methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
Page 6 of 7
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Construction is scheduled to begin immediately following receipt of the appropriate permits.
3 . 2a- aG
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 7 of 7
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: March 20, 2006
COUNTY Mecklenburg County. North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 9.7 Acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Hoopaugh Grading Company LLC
POC• Mr. Brian McManus at [phone]
222 Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte NC 28273
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
POC: Mr. Gregg C Antemann at [phone]
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte NC 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: commercial development )
( ) 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 Fort Mill, NC Topographic Quadrangles
(X) NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Figure 1)
(X) Proposed Impacts (Figure 2)
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP 1- SCP2)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP 1- SCP2)
(X) Routine On-Site Data Forms (DP 1 - DP2)
(X) Representative Photographs (Photographs A - D)
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Gregg C. Antemann
Mar-21-06 11:11A Hoopaugh Grading Co.LLC 704 588 2666 P.03
ACCENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
1, RTian McManus; TtT. msenring Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC, hereby certify that i
have authorized Gregory C. Antenna n of Caroliua Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this
Nationwide Permit and any and all standard and spmial umditions attached-
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accame to the best of our knowledge.
Applicant's signaiurc
Agent's signature
3 A
Date
s/tGO •G
Dula
Completion of this firm will allow the agent to sign all future applicatiou correspondence.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/23/2006 Project. Hoopuaugh Grading Office SL itude: N 35' 7' 8"
Evaluator. RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP1 Longitude: W 80° 54' 45"
Total Points: Other Unimportant Intermittent
Sfrearn is at feast intermittent county: e.g. Quad Name: Stream A
ify 19 or perennial if? 30 22.00 Mecklenburg
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10.0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 3,0 0 1 2 3
2 Sinuosity 1. 0 1 2 3
3. fn-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3
5. fictive/relic floodptain 0, 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1. 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9 e, Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
12 Plural valley or drainageway 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.

0.0
No = 0
Yes= 3
Mart-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in r ye!
E2 @.-tiarireai-rm? 1C`1 NF&^fnI = A n N
14. GrourKMrater flo%4discharge 1.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and n 48 hrs since, rain, ?
Wafer in channel -- d or growing season
1. 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 0.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
IT Sediment on plants or debris 1A 0 0.5 1 1.5
I& Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lanes) 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.5 No = 0 Yes =1.5
f"_ Pjnh,aw (IQ[ihtnrat = 6_nn 1
2EP- Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21b_ Rooted plants in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Waives 0A 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1A 0 1 2 3
26_ Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 °. V&tland plants in streambed 0.00 E=AC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Keens 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item focuses on the presence or aquatic or wenana plan€s.
Dotes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
37 717_??, ???.ZD?D?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/23/2006 Project' Hoopuaugh Grading Office Si?etitude: N 35° T 8"
Evaluator. RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP2 Longitude: W 80° 54' 45"
Total Points: Other Perennial Stream B
Stream is at feast intermittent County:
if? 19 or perennial if>_ 30 34.50 Mecklenbur e.g. QuarlName.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =--19.5--) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 3, 0 1 2 3
2 Sinuosity 2.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: rifle-pool sequence 2.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Activetretic floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0,0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USES or MRCS map or other documented
evidence. 3.0
No= 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R t--hwirninemi 6Ci &*ntal = 8411 1
14. Groundwater flo4discharge 2.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, ar
Water in channel -- d or rovA season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaftitter 1. 15 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris tines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Rinhvw 1`291 tntnt = 74116 1
20P. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0. 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0,5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 OS 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae, periphyton 1.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 °_ Wedand plants in streambed 0.00 FAG = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland piants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetiana plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Moderate eaddisflies
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Unimportant Intermittent Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/23/06 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:00 pm.
5. Name of Stream: UT Sugar Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 85 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach. Evaluated: 500 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Charlotte, travel south on Interstate
77 (I-77) to Westinghouse Blvd. exit (exit #1). Turn left onto East Westinghouse Blvd., travel approximately 1 mile and turn left onto
Nations Ford Rd. Travel approximately % mile and turn left onto Forsyth Dr.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35° 7' 8" W80'54'45"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the east 12 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: rainy 50 degrees '
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 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:_
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'? YES (!?) 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential 20 % Commercial 80 % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 34' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2°io) 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 Scare (from reverse): 32 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature -%?? G -^A Dater'
This channel evaluation form i 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 USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1- Unimportant Intermittent Stream A
t E A R I i.RI's, oastal ------
s'ainrant slountaiu

Presence of flow persistent pools in stream

- -
(no flow or saturation 0; strong flow =' max points) 2
5 ? - -
Evidence. of past human alteration
?0-; 1
(extensive alteration - 0; no alteration max points)
Riparian zone
3
(no buffer= 0; contiguous. wide buffer = max points) 0 6 4 0- 0

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical dischar-es
ZO,
n - -( ?) - 3
(extensive discharges 0; no discharges - max pcinr.?

5 Groundwater discharge
?
0
3

- 2
-
-
(no dischar, - 0: springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. ma,. I,. int.;,
-
= Presence of adjacent tloodplain
-- -
0
??
(no;floodplu? 0, extensive floodplain=may p, ,ni: i
-
_ Entrenchment /`°floodplain access
0
5
1
-
(deeply entrenched`- 0; frequent flooding = max points)
s Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0- 0
(no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands= mast putnts)
Channel sinuosity 0-5, 0 4 1
(extensive chanuelization 0, natural meander max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 0
4 0 5
2
(fine, homogenous = 0: large, diverse sizes max points) -
Evidence of channel incision or `videninQ

0 0
0-4
0 5
0
(deeply incised - 0: stable bed & banks max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0 O 5 0 4
--l (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks max points)

-?
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
4
_ (no visible roots O; dense roots throughout max?points)
J,
15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 4
0
4
(substantial impact 0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0 -0 0
6 ' 2
_ (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well' developed max points) -

1 Habitat complexity
0 6
0 6
0 6
2
r" (little or. no habitat 0; frequent, varied habitats Teat points)

is Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5,
0-5
1
(no shading vegetation 0; continuous canopy - max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
?
0 4
0 4 -
1
(deeply embedded 0; loose structure max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0 4
0 5
0
0
(no evidence = 0: common, numerous types= max points)
Presence of>amphibians
? 1
(no evidence °= 0: common. numerous types = max points,) 0 } 0 4 0 } 0

22 Presence of fish
'0 4
0 4
0 4
0
(no evidence = 0: con-mon, numerous types= max points)
- 3 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0 0> 0
(no evidence O::abundant evidence = max points)
Fw al Points Possible 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page i
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
32
2
OFFICE USE ONLY
J
USACE AID#
_ ................................................
DWQ#
SCP2 - Perennial Stream B
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 1. Applicant's Name: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/23/06 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT Sugar Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 85 acres 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 5001f 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Charlotte, travel south on Interstate
77 (I-77) to Westinghouse Blvd. exit (exit #1). Turn left onto East Westinghouse Blvd., travel approximately 1 mile and turn left onto
Nations Ford Rd. Travel approximately'/ mile and turn left onto Forsyth Dr.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35° 7' 8" W80'54'45"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 12 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: rainy 50 degrees
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 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:_
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential 20 0 o Commercial 80 % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width
5-7'
22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2° o) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality
Total Score (from reverse): 59 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date This This channel evaluation form 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
SCP2 - Perennial Stream B
E ORLGiO N POINT C>>a t .i Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0
-

(no flow or saturation 0 strong flow max points) _

0

- 4
Evidence of pasthu-man alteration

?zt; naive alteration 0; no alteration max points) 0- () 2
Riparian zone

g
0
n 0-4

C?->

2
(no
buffer = 0; contiguous wide buffer - max points)
4 FN idence of nutrient or chemical discharges ,
2"- n? ve dischames - 0; no discharges max points -
-?
Groundwater discharge _ -- - -? --
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. max points)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
,rro floodplain 0- extensive floodplain , max points) 3
Entrenchment /`floodplain access
0
5

-
(deeply entrenched = 0-, frequent flooding = max points) - i - 4

g Presence of adjacent wetlands
0 -
l
4
6

tno wetlands 0: lame adjacent wetlands max
points) - ,
-
- 3_
9 Channel` sinuosity i

(extensive clrannelization 0; natural meander max points) , -
t0 Sediment input 0 0-4 0-4 I 3
- (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 0
4 0
5 2
(fine, homogenous = 0: large, diverse sizes = max points) - -
Evidence of channel; incision or widening
0
0
0 4
0 I
(deeply- incised Q stable bed & banks - max points)
I? Presence of major bank failures 0 0
5 0 4
(severe erosion 0, no erosion, stable bantcs = max points) -

14 Root depth and density on banks
0
3
0- 4
0 5
2
(no visible roots 0; dense "routs throughout -max points)
t I Impact by agriculture °orlivestock production _
(substantial impact =0; no evidence - max points) 0 0 4 0 5 4

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0
3
0 -
0 6
3
_ (no riffles ripples or pools 0: well-developed max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0
6
0 6
0 6
3
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
IS Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0 5 0 4
(no shading vegetation= 0; continuous canopy max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness F 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded 0, loose structure max)
:

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0
4
0
0
2
(no evidence= 0; common; numerous types== max points)
I Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0-4 0-4 0
C (no evidence= 0: common. numerous t_vpes,= max points)

-
?, Presence of fish
0--
4 ? ?
0-4
04
p
(no evidence= 0: common, numerous types- max points)
?? Evidence of wildlife use
A 0 6 0 5 0? 0
(no evidence 0; abundant evidence
max points)
?I?,?tal Puiniti i'naihlc
I O ??. S( t)R. iAlso enter i it-It
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
59
2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands. Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Hoo au h Grading Office Site Date: 01/23/06
Applicant/Owner: Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Ron Johnson, WPIT and Matt Jenkins State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DPI
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1. Alnus sermlata Stratum Indicator
tree FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. Salix nigra tree OBL 10.
3. Juncus effusus herb FACW+ 11.
4. Liquidambarsryraciflua tree FAC+ 12.
5. Platanus occidentalis tree FACW- 13.
6. Carex spp. herb - 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
All of the dominant plant sp
ecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
saturated in. Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
_
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-2 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) -K-Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: <12 (in.) -? FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine On-Site Data Form Page 1 of 2 3/20/2006
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan soils Drainage Class poorly-drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaq uentic EutrudeptS Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No

Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B Gleyl 2.5/10Y N/A N/A sandy silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
WI=TI Akin nF=TF:PMINATI0N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Ye No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HOUSACE 2/92
Routine On-Site Data Form Page 2 Of 2 3/20/2006
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Hoo au h Grading Office Site Date: 01/23/06
Applicant/Owner: Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Ron Johnson, WPIT and Matt Jenkins 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: DP2
If needed, explain on reverse.
vGr_=TATinti
Dominant Plant S ecies
1. Lonicera japonica Stratum Indicator
vine FAC- Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. Rubus argutus shrub FACU+ 10.
3. Rosa multiflora shrub UPL 11.
4. Liquidambarstyraciffua tree FAC+ 12.
5. Festuca spp. herb 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
.25%
Remarks:
Less than 50% of the dominant
,i
plant species are FAC or wetter.
11
uvnRni nrv
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lakeror Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine On-Site Data Form Page 1 of 2 3/20/2006
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mecklenburg fine sand y l, 4 to 8 % slopes Drainage Class well-drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs 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.
0-12 B 7.5YR 4/6 N/A N/A sandy silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils-List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of 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 Form Page 2 Of 2 3/20/2006
1,.t. SPATE y.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary. David Brook, Director
February 27, 2006
Matt Jenkins
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Re: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site, Forsyth Drive, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 06-0320
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for your letter of January 24, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 1066f 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, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
??.
Peter Sandbeck
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 7, 2006
Matt Jenkins and Andrea Hughes
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte NC 28273
RE: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Charlotte, NC
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2005-1249
Dear Ms. Hughes and Mr. Jenkins:
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
I have noticed in your letters to the Natural Heritage Program that the address you are using indicates we are
part of the Division of Parks and Recreation. This is incorrect. We are a separate program within the
Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. We ask that you correct this in your address books
in order to avoid confusion in the mailroom.
The Natural Heritage Program has no records of rare species or significant natural communities within the
project area, as shown on the map included with your letter of 24 January 2006. The project is located within
500 meters of Sugar Creek, a historical location for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Laasmigona decorata), a
federally and state endangered mussel. This population was last found in 1918 and is believed extirpated.
Although our maps do not show records of natural heritage elements within the project area, we have no
evidence that rare species are not present. The area simply may not have 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. If you do find rare
species during field surveys, we encourage you to report them to the Natural Heritage Program using the
enclosed Rare Plant and Animal Field Survey Forms.
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 topographic quad map. Please
do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8700 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Misty Franklin, Botanist
NC Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NoOne
TthCaTOlina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet www.ncnhp.orp,
;V
An ??ul,?"?
Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
Hoopaugh Grad-ng Office Site
Nationwide Permit No 39 Proiect No. 2005-1249
Photograph A. View of Unimportant Intermittent Stream A, facing upstream.
Photograph B. View of Unimportant Intermittent Stream A, facing downstream.
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Nationwide Permit \0 39 Project No. 2009-1249
Photograph C. View of Perennial Stream B and adjacent Wetland AA, facing upstream.
Photograph D. View of non jurisdictional area flowing into Wetland BB, facing south.
?C'WS
"'4 Carolina Wetland Services
March 20, 2006
Ms. Amanda Jones
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (V)
704-527-1133 (fax)
U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
t
20060501
MAR 2 3 2006
nA DS AND S ORM ASR BRANCH
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 39
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Charlotte, North Carolina r (S t, ;'
Carolina Wetland Services ProJ ject No. 2005-1249 FILL L
The Hoopaugh Grading Office Site is located on Forsyth Drive in Charlotte, North Carolina,
approximately % mile north of the Westinghouse Boulevard - Nations Ford Road intersection
(Figure 1, enclosed). The purpose of this project is to expand the existing land use of the
property. Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
(CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. Please see the attached,
signed Agent Certification of Authorization Form.
Applicant Name: Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC, Mr. Brian McManus
Mailing Address: 222 Westinghouse Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-588-2284
Street Address of Project: 222 Westinghouse Blvd.
Waterway: UT to Sugar Creek
Basin: Catawba River (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35' 7' 8", W80° 54' 45"
USGS Quadrangle Name: Fort Mill, North Carolina, 1996
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is industrial with small adjacent wooded areas.
Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of kudzu (Pueraria lobata), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common blackberry (Rubus argutus), catbriar
(Smilax rotundifolia), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua),
red maple (Acer rubrum), and various grasses (Festuca spp.). According to the Soil Survey of
Mecklenburg Countyl, on-site soils consist of Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 4 to 8 percent
slopes (MeB) and Monacan soils (MO)2. Mecklenburg fine sandy loam is well drained and
' United States Department of Agriculture, 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
z NRCS Hydric Soils of North Carolina, December 15, 1995.
CHARLOTTE:
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (V)
704-527-1133 (fax)
COLUMBIA:
322A SOUTHLAKE DRIVE, SUITE 2
LEXINGTON, SC 29072
803-358-0102 (V)
803-753-9639 (fax)
RALEIGH:
8311 BRIER CREEK PARKWAY
SUITE 105-126
RALEIGH, NC 27617
919-932-2197 (V)
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
March 20, 2006
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 2 of 4
exhibits slow permeability, while Monacan soils are somewhat poorly drained and exhibit
moderate permeability.
Jurisdictional Delineation
On January 23, 2006, CWS's Ron Johnson, WPIT and Matt Jenkins determined and classified on-
site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Routine
On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual 3 There are two jurisdictional wetland areas located within the property
boundary. Routine On-Site Data Forms representative of Wetlands AA - BB and non jurisdictional
upland areas are enclosed (DPI and DP2). The boundary of these wetland areas were flagged and
surveyed with a sub-meter GPS unit. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were classified according to
recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)4 and USACE guidance. NCDWQ
Stream Classification Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets for Streams A
and B are enclosed (SCP1 and SCP2).
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are two jurisdictional stream
channels (Streams A and B) located within the project area (Figure 1, enclosed). Streams A and B
are an unnamed tributaries to Sugar Creek. Sugar Creek is in the Catawba River basin
(HU# 03050103)5 and is classified as "Class C" by the NCDWQ.
Stream A flows along the southern portion of the property boundary until its convergence with
Stream B (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A is approximately 532 linear feet and was evaluated to
be Unimportant Intermittent. This channel conveys a large amount of stormwater during high
flow events; however, persistent flow and pools are not present during normal conditions. This
reach exhibited an average ordinary high water width of 3 to 4 feet, weak sinuosity, and substrate
consisting of silt to coarse sand. Unimportant Intermittent Stream A scored 32 out of a possible
100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 22 out of 71 possible
points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1, enclosed). Photographs of
Unimportant Intermittent Stream A are enclosed as Photographs A and B. On December 7, 2005,
Mr. Alan Johnson with the NCDWQ - Mooresville Regional Office visited the site with Gregg
Antemann, PWS of CWS, and confirmed the classification of this channel as Unimportant
Intermittent.
Stream B flows along the western portion of the property until its off-site confluence with Sugar
Creek (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream B is approximately 260 linear feet and was evaluated to be
Perennial. This reach exhibited average ordinary high water widths of 5 to 7 feet, moderate
sinuosity, and substrate consisting of silt to small cobble. Perennial Stream B scored 59 out of a
possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 34.5 out of 71
possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP2, enclosed). A photograph of
Perennial Stream B is enclosed as Photograph C.
Wetlands AA and BB are located adjacent to Perennial Stream B and are approximately 0.08 and
0.01 acre in size, respectively. Dominant vegetation in these areas includes sweetgum, tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), black willow (Salix nigra), soft stem rush (Juncus effusus), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), and various sedges (Carex spp.). These areas exhibited gleyed soils
(Gley12.5/1 OY), inundation to 2 inches, and saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil
3 Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
4 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999. Stream Classification Method. Version 2.0.
5 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
March 20, 2006
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 3 of 4
profile. A Routine On-Site Determination Form representative of these wetland areas is enclosed
(DPI). Photographs of Wetlands AA and BB are enclosed as Photographs C and D, respectively.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on January 24, 2006 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, of archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. In a response letter dated February 27, 2006 (enclosed), SHPO
stated that they "are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project."
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on
January 24, 2006 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
February 7, 2006 (enclosed), the NCNHP identified the project location as being within 500
meters of Sugar Creek, a historical location for the federally-endangered Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata). However, the NCNHP stated "this population was last found in 1918 and
is believed to be extirpated."
Purpose and Need for the Project
The current site plan proposes to grade the existing site for development. The site is the future
location for Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC and includes an office building and additional
areas for required storage of materials and equipment.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Impacts to on-site unimportant intermittent stream channels (Stream A) have been
reduced to less than 0.10 acre. The original site plan required the piping of the entire on-site
length of Stream A. A revised site plan proposes to relocate this channel in lieu of piping. In
addition, a level spreader device will be constructed at the outfall of the proposed detention basin
to provide diffuse flow. Please note that if a drainage easement is acquired through the adjacent
property, storm water will be discharged directly into a 100-year floodplain area and measures
will be taken to avoid erosion at this outfall (Figure 2, enclosed).
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable temporary impacts to Unimportant Intermittent Stream A will total approximately 444
linear feet (0.04 acre). Proposed impacts are a result of 444 linear feet of stream channel relocation.
Unimportant Intermittent Stream A will be relocated to the southern portion of the property and will
total approximately 456 linear feet (Figure 2, enclosed). On behalf of Hoopaugh Grading
Company, LLC, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application with
attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 13, and pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Water Quality Certification No. 3402 (enclosed).
Compensatory Mitigation
The newly relocated channel will be planted with bioengineering techniques (live stakes) and
matted with geotextile material. This work will include enhancing Stream A from its present
March 20, 2006
Ms. Amanda Jones
Page 4 of 4
heavily urbanized state to a more natural functioning channel. This relocation will result in an
increase of 12 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at 704-527-1177 should you have any questions or comments
regarding these findings.
,Gregg C. Antemann, PWS
Principal Biologist
Ma L. Jenkins
Staff Biologist II
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Fort Mill, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 39
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
DWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1 and SCP2)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP1 and SCP2)
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP1 and DP2)
Agency Correspondence
Representative Photographs (Photographs A - D)
cc: Mr. Brian McManus, Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC
Mr. Alan Johnson, NCDWQ
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ
YA200aProjects\2005-1249 Hoopaugh Grading Office Site\Pennitting\NWP39report.doc
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Nationwide Permit No 39 Project No. 2005-1249
4QoP _ Gaging j l ?r x Fund
ax saws" F
A b
N
,i.

CH-A
t ry 11-77 ty \ a y' 3 J ,
plc ^ /..
41, 1 c A t; a' "'.? l [6poggr? F NaUOns Ford Rd? { ,: { 'LJ 21,
47
yH fi +e Downs Rd r 1,
r ..? ?75 ! ' /• - S - -' pmt`....
l ?, r; ; (? CaL??:Y2 ? •y:?? .??,g}?j --•:._ \? ? r. / ? _ fJLCiiI?
Silva
_ 1
*ell
14 1
?, 3 20
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Fort Mill, North Carolina, dated 1996,.;,...
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
I
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Nationwide Permit No. 39 Project No. 2005-1249
MeB MeD
MO
? MeB ?`t• Cep2 MOMeB ly
Me6-'U Mee
?Vc U) WkE
MeD MeR O M e B MO -??• 1, MeD ro uU
21 (;eD2 Ur
e D O, '
Ur M?'Q CeQ2Ce??
/ lVf ?g b
PAL?
Me % MeB
f eR.?' Pt ?r
Mk6 ?egl l M / ?.
O?
? PaE ' mot--- zt
M9? i Ca DaB CD WkE Wk
DaB ?• ?,.
/? / tAej p SuqDab
Iu6 MeD y ?? s
kt6
MeD _ WkB
A(?\ Dab ?PgI CeD2
/\ No l ?? Me[
c
?St/h 'rs MeB MeB I P.e DaB L
Qu MeD ?? e0
0 / ejVQ / e \. {Cjtty? O
MkB MO CeB2 CUB
MeB CeD2 • r '
w MeB McDV PaE C
Mk6
PaE CeD
,
RO Pt w ?de C02 / Ce02- t
MeB Pt -
Ur CeB2
Ire Q MeD CeD2 L CUB
O MeB
MeB DaD
Ire N \t MeB
MeB Ir6
MeB
1Q?` MeB Mp?Cr Ur UL
water' s
MeD IrA Da6? IrA
- MeB 1 B
n MeB 1 IUB
O?r MeB Mef' ?A
Ire MeB
-B 0
MO_ eB ) IrA 3?/O IrA
M
0 J 1111
WkB •? IrA 000 MeB - Ur
I.
?,• MeD / MeD \ m\ ??` 0
MeB
MeB MeD IrA
I rB
IUB
r... NC-51 MeB ?fee 1 0? MO kB ?r9 ?k6 IuB
\ U0
IrB rA B
Cif IrB DaD \ \-MeB' ?.. MeB
`??r? =
6 CeB2 \'.,- 1\ HMO MO?
?J
• : DaB CeB2 L MeB IuB,
MO i Ir6
P
' a?~yxB3 B
t• z i _. / M e L_.? U r
CeB2 10,
x ,e y
`Meo
Mee U, Pineville
Mee U, Pineville
E 5 II 0 MO MB MeD M.
t
WkE MeD IuB WkD
MeB
KR .. ps . ;;b?" < P a F ..
MeB WkE
• c ? .A a ? (3?
CeB2
?#.•. l` _ MeB
MeD dr6
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-MRCS
NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 11, dated 1980.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
NOTE. JURISDICTIONAL, WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED AND
CLASSIFIED BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. (CWS) ON JANUARY 23, 2006.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREAS WERE SURVEYED USING A SUB-METER GPS UNIT.
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACF.

MAP, 2 3 2006
DENR WATEk QUALITY
11ANDS AND STORMWAiER BRANCH
I
LEGEND
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM CHANNEL
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREA
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
-? PHOTO LOCATION AND DIRECTION
APPROXIMATE SCALE: I"= 100'

Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE Sfl E PLAN AND SURVEY PROVIDED BY SC I IONDROS & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
DATED OC'POBER 2005
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary
Field Map
Hoopaogh Grading Office Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Pro'ect No. 2005-1249
DATE
I RFI ABED I3Y DATE CHECKED
M`T 3_X -p6 6 c a S to • v{i

NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL, WAI'I:RS OF'THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED AND
CLASSIFIED BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. (CWS) ON JANUARY 23, 2006.
JURISDICTIONAL WliTI,AND AIZEAS WERE SURVEYED USING A SU13-METER GPS UNIT,
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES IIAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY "FI IF USACE.
ILEGEND
IMPACTED STREAM CHANNEL
RELOCATED STREAM CHANNEL
REGRADED CONTOURS
?+-?- JURISDICTIONAL STREAM CHANNEL
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREA
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATE SCALE: F -100'
U, 7?
E4
MAR 2 2006
IAN14Np STrEk GUAIITy
0%; ATER skqVCN
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
d AND SURVEY PROVIDED BY SC HONDROS & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2005-1249
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED DACE I?
3 20 •0b ^/Arw z - z.o •0G

Office Use Only: Fonn Version April 2001
20060501
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: p wg
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit Mp,, 2 200
® 401 Water Quality Certification .
F-1 Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules s EwA? BRWC"
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Water Quality Certification No. 3402
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC, Contact: Mr. Brian McManus
Mailing Address:222 Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte. North Carolina 28273
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Consultant Information (A. signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mr. Gregg C. Antemann
Company Affiliation: Carolina Wetland Services Inc.
Mailing Address: 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: regg?a,cws-inc.net
Page 1 of 7
III. Project Information
1. Name of project: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 203-055-23
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From downtown Charlotte, travel
south on Interstate 77 (I-77) to Westinghouse Blvd. exit (exit #1). Turn left onto East
Westinghouse Blvd. travel approximately 1 mile and turn left onto Nations Ford Rd. Travel
approximately 1/ mile and turn left onto Forsyth Dr.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N35° 7' 8" W80'54'45"
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
The existing land use of the project area is industrial with small adjacent wooded areas. The
majority of the site has been cleared and graded.
7. Property size (acres): 9.7 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Sugar Creek
9. River Basin: Catawba River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admir/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The current site plan proposes to grade the
existing site for development. The site is the future location for Hoopaugh Grading
Company LLC and includes an office building and additional areas for required storage of
materials and equipment.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: A trackhoe and typical
excavation equipment will be used for this project.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The land use surrounding the project is
mainly industrial with adjacent wooded areas.
Page 2 of 7
IV. Prior Project History
This proiect has no prior history
V. Future Project Plans
There are no future project plans for this site.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Area of Impact Located within
100-year Distance to
***
Site Number Type of Impact* (acres) *
Floodplain' Nearest Stream Type of Wetland
(indicate on map) (yes/no) (linear feet)
N/A
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: inechanized clearing, grading, till,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain snaps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Type of Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on map) (linear feet) Before Impact (please specify)
444 if (before)
'
Unimportant
Stream A Temporary 456 if (after) UT to Sugar Creek 3-4 Intermittent
net gain 12 if
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream naives can be found on USGS topographic snaps. If a stream has no naive, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 444 linear feet relocated,
456 linear feet of new channel net gain of 12 linear feet
Page 3 of 7
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S. N/A
Open Water Impact
* Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
estuary, sound,
pond
(lake
Site Number Type of Impact Impact (if applicable) ,
,
etc.)
ocean
bay
(indicate on map) (acres) ,
,
N/A
,___. .. 1:._ ,.:.,.A t,.• 411 ,atinn rlrpdorino
List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts ulciuuc, vu= aic uv= .______?? -•••, •-- •--____,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
if construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A
Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable Impacts to on site unimportant intermittent stream channels (Stream A) have
been reduced to less than 0.10 acre. The original site plan required the piping of the entire
on site length of Stream A A revised site plan proposes to relocate this channel in lieu of
piping In addition a level spreader device will be constructed at the outfall of the proposed
detention basin to provide diffuse flow. Please note that if a drainage easement is acquired
through the adjacent property, storm water will be discharged directly into a 100-year
floodplain area and measures will be taken to avoid erosion at this outfall (Figure 2,
enclosed)
VIII. Mitigation
The newly relocated channel will be planted with bioengineering techniques (live stakes) and
matted with geotextile material This work will include enhancing Stream A from its present
heavily urbanized state to a more natural functioning channel. This relocation will result in
an increase of 12 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel.
Page 4 of 7
1. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htrn. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for enviromnental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and snap all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify: )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 5 of 7
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers. N/A
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out sU reet perpenaiumac uuui ucai ua- ?? ?.=u=u=?=> -•-•____ __
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment.into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A . _
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Sources of nearby impervious cover include roads, driveways and rooftops. This project will
cause an increase in the impervious coverage of the protect area by approximately 3.9 acres. A
level spreader will be constructed at the outfall of the detention basin to provide diffuse flow.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No r;l
Page 6 of 7
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Construction is scheduled to begin immediately following receipt of the appropriate permits.
3 . zo- oG
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 7 of 7
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: March 20.2006
COUNTY Mecklenburg County North Carolina _ TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 9.7 Acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Hoo au h Gradin Office Site
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Howaugh Grading Company LLC
POC Mr. Brian McManus at [phone]
222 Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte NC 28273
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services Inc.
POC: Mr. Gregg C Antemann at [phone]
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte NC 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X ) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: commercial development )
( ) 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 Fort Mill, NC Topographic Quadrangles
(X) NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Figure 1)
(X) Proposed Impacts (Figure 2)
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form
(X ) NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1- SCP2)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP 1- SCP2)
(X) Routine On-Site Data Forms (DP 1- DP2)
(X) Representative Photographs (Photographs A - D)
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Gregg C. Antemann
P_03
Mar-21-06 11:11A Hoopaugh Grading Co_LLC 704 588 2666
U•4,Su P. 2
ACCENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
1. IMan McManus, representing Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC, bereby certi fy that l
have authorized Gregory C. Antcma n of Carolina Wctland Scrviccs, lac. to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this
Nationwide Permit and any and all standard and special ccmdihons attached-
We hereby certify that the above informat.ioa submitted. in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Applicant's signature
Agent's signature
3 /Z,/V(,
Date
-2/so/to
Corapietion of this farFn will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Crate: 01/23/2006 Rrolect. Hoopuaugh Grading Office SiItude: N 35' 7' 8"
Evaluator- RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP1 Longitude: W 80° 54' 45"
Total Points' Other Unimportant Intermittent
S"arn is at least tnterl*ttent County e.9. Quad NanW. Stream A
00 Mecklenburg
ya is or eenniat if >, 30 22 •
subtotal = 10.0
A. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
.
1. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1.0
3, In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0
0 1
1 2
2 3
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3
5. Ac&etrelic floodptain 0.0
0. Denitional bars or benches 1.0
7. Braided channel 0.0 0
0
0 1
1
1 2
2
2 3
3
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0
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 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other docurnented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in arranual
c n
t3, ut ulu ?UCJCCJCRI - v. v
14. Groundwater flov4discharge
1.0
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, air 0 1 2 3
Water in channel -- d or growing season 1.0
18. Leaflitter 0.5 15 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
18 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
19, Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.5 No= 0 Yes= 1 .5
i nn
%-,, CAIVIL11 Y tVUULMLut - ",U- p
3
2
1
0
20 _ Fibrous roots in channel 3.0
21b. tooted plants in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
28. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0,0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAG = 0.5; FACW 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
..bl..w..1 r.i.a r.bc
Items 2O and L7 locus on ine presence c,t uwa11u i.tww,., tcc... Gv ?.... a ... _- -• -?,-- - -- -- -
Sketch:
Notes- (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
1 5
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/23/2006 Project' Hoopuaugh Grading Office SLl&itude: N 35° 7' 8"
Evaluatvir; RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP2 Longitude: W 80° 54' 4511
Total Points- Other Perennial Stream B
$&&arr ft at ;;Q warm'itent CO ty e.g. Quad Name;
,f a 19 30 34.. O Mecklenburg
A. Geonno ola subtotal = 19.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Continuous bed and bank 3, 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 21 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: Me-pool sequence 2, 0 1 2 3
4. Sail texture or slrearn substrate sorting 2. 0 1 2 3
5. Acdvefrelic Main 2. 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent aluvial deposits 1. 0 1 2 3
g?'Natural levees 1.0 0 1 2 3
10. l-feadc uts 0. 0 1 2 3
11. Grade c ontrdl s 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Nadural valley or drainagevmy 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on xisbin
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence. 3.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
"Man-made caches am not rated: see discussions in manual
rc?. ..E_a_x,..E _ 4 n %
U. i _i a.1? ar?v ..a-.ea...c..ca
14. Groundwater floWdischarge 2.0
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Witter in channel -- d or rovA season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leah tier 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Qrganic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1,0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19_ Hydric As (redoximorphic features) present? 1.5 No= 0 Yes =1.5

v. v "Uy ILv.wv.........
2(P- Fibrous roots in channel 3.0
3
2
1
0
21°. Rooted plants in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27_ Filamentous algae; periphyton 1.0 0 1 2 3
28. Cron wddiaing bacterialfungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
2q b_
plants in strearnbed 0.00
FAG = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Kerns 20 and 21 focus out the presence or upianu pmanm. i?all L.7 ewuaUz? "I LIEU pl-E .v ?., uKw ... . •. ..• r.-...-.
Sketch:
Motes. (use back side of this form for adclitional notes.)
Mcidernte caddisflies
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID#
SCP1 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream A
J STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 1. Applicant's Name: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/23/06 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT Sugar Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 85 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 500 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Charlotte, travel south on Interstate
77 (I-77) to Westinghouse Blvd. exit (exit #1). Turn left onto East Westinghouse Blvd., travel approximately 1 mile and turn left onto
Nations Ford Rd. Travel approximately % mile and turn left onto Forsyth Dr.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35° 7' 8" W80'54'45"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 12 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: rainy 50 degrees
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 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:_
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES, 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential 20 % Commercial 80 % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 3-4' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 20/'o) 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):
Comments:
Date 4;
Evaluator's Signature
This channel evaluation form i intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
DWQ#
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1- Unimp®rtant Intermittent Stream A
E-COMI t iON POINT K_ SCE
Coastai Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent` pools in stream 0-5 0-
1 5 2
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow - max points) 1
a
- Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 u
1
(extensive alteration = 0: no alteration - max points)
Riparian zone
0-6
0
(no buffer- 0; contiguous, wide buffer max points)
4 'Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

5
t,,nsnxe discharges 0; no discharges = max pci W< i
i
3
Groundwater dischar-e
b
i?-i () d 2
(no discharge 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc_ nur, I_•,nr> i

6 Presence of adjacent floodplaiu
d
(no floodplain O; extensive floodplain ?.i-" r''i11i>
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 5 -4
1
(deeply entrenched= 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0
? 0
(no wetlands 0, large adjacent wetlands = max pouaN)

9 Channel sinuosity
?0 - 5
0 a
1
(extensive channelization 0; natural meander max points) -
10 Sediment input 0 - 0 -a 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
' 0-4 0-5 2
(fine,
homogenous - 0. large, diverse sizes =max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 5 0 4
0 5
0
,• ( deeply incised 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

1 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0- 5
4
(severe erosion 0; no erosion, stable banks- max points)
m
14 Root depth and density on banks
0 -' -
0-4
0 - 5
4
(no visible roots 0; dense roots throughout= max points)

1 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0 - 0 4 0 5 4
16 Presence ofi•iffle-pool/ripple-poot.complexes 0-3 0-5 ` 0
6 2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed - max points) -
17 Habitat complexity
0 6
0 6
-0 6
2
E^ ( (little or no habitat 0; frequent. varied habitats ma.x points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0 0-5 1
.., (no shading ve-etation = 0; continuous canopy max, points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
=
0 l
0
1
(deeply embedded
0; loose strucnire max)

20 Presence of streaminvertebrates
0
4
0 5
0 5
0
(no evidence - 0; con-mion. numerous types = max points) -
r

'
l
Presence of amphibians

0-4

0-4

0

0
O (no evidence - 0; common. numerous types max points)
?2 Presence of fish 0-4 0 0 0
(no evidence = 0, common, ntunerous tvpes max points)

- Evidence of wildlife use 0 6 0 5 0 5 0
(no evidence 0: abundant evidence `Max points)
lotal Points Possible
TOTAL SCORE: 32
lhese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
OFFICE USE ONLY:
USACE AID#
DWQ#
SCP2 - Perennial Stream B
T' 7
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: HoopauQh Grading Office Site 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/23/06 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT Sugar Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 85 acres 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 500 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From downtown Charlotte, travel south on Interstate
77 (I-77) to Westinghouse Blvd. exit (exit #1). Turn left onto East Westinghouse Blvd., travel approximately 1 mile and turn left onto
Nations Ford Rd. Travel approximately'/ mile and turn left onto Forsyth Dr.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35° 7' 8" W80'54'45"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 12 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: rainy 50 degrees
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 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:-
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential 20 % Commercial 80 % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width
5-7'
22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate fonn used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality. -
Total Score (from reverse): 59 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form 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 USAGE 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
SCP2 - Perennial Stream B
SS yy 77 ?:t f?i?F:i; (3? 'O T ?:? Z3 ?? ll
Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 5
(no flow or saturation= 0; strong flow= max paints} T 0 4 0- 5 4
Evidence of past hu-nian alteration
? , ,:tensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max poi-iii
Riparian zone - -
(no buffer= 0- contiguous, wide buffer max pola1,1 0 ° 0-1 u a 2
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
'
3
- 04 0-
extensive discharges 0; no discharges = max points,
5 Groundwater discharge
discharge = 0: springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. max points) -
Presence of jcent - - - ---
floodp
ae tloodplain ? max points j -4 - 1 3
7 Entrenchment /,floodplain access

(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding= max points) 0 -1 0_ 4
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

tno wetlands 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) - 0 0 3
9 Channel sinuositv
(extensive channehzation 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: lar,2e, diverse sizes r= max points) 0-4 0 5 2

2 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 ,
0 4
0 5
3
L (deeply incised 0: stable bed & batiks = max joints)'
13 Presence of major bank failures 0 5 0
5 0
5 4
(severe erosion 0: no erosion, stable banks = max points) - -

14 Root depth and density on banks
0 3
0 1
0 5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throui,hout.- max points},
1
1
, Impact by agricultureor livestock production
0 5
0
0
4

(substantial mlpact-0: no evidence max points) -4 1
16 Presence of riffle-pool/'ripple-pool complexes

(no raffles/ripples-or pools = 0: well-developed max points) 0 3 0
5
0-6
3
habitat complexity 0 6 0-6 0-6
3
(little or no habitat = 0: frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed

0

0 5

0 5

4
_ (no shadma veoetation.= 0: continuous canopy max'points) '
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA..
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded - 0; loose: structure = max)
I 20 Presence of stream invertebrates

(no evidence 0: Common, numerous types=coax points) 0-4 0- 0- 2
1 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 ? 0
(no evidence= 0: common, numerous ropes = max points)

22 Presence of fish

0-4

0-4

0-4

0
(no evidence= 0; common, numerous types = max points)

71 Evidence of wildlife use

..
6
0 5
0
0
(no evidence 0,- abundant evidence "max points)

, ..tai ?)oints Possible
` OTAt S( : )RE (also enon first pa--, C )
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
59
2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands. Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Hoo augh Grading Office Site Date: 01/23/06
Applicant/Owner: Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Ron Johnson, WPIT and Matt Jenkins State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: ' Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
I Plot ID: RP-
- needed, explain on reverse.
vCvC1A1wl,
Dominant Plant S ecies
Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Alnus serrulata tree FACW 9.
2. Salix nigra tree OBL 10.
3. Juncus effusus herb FACW+ 11.
4. Liquidambar styracfflua tree FAC+ 12.
5. Platanus occidentalis tree FACW- 13.
6. Carex spp. herb 14.
7 15.
$ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
All of the dominant plant sp
ecies are FAC or wetter.
n t ur?v?vv z
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
V Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks

Field Observations: Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-2 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) ?- Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: <12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine On-Site Data Form Page I of 2 3/20/2006
SUILJ
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan soils Drainage Class poorly-drained
Field Observations
FinfrnrlPnt,a Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
etc
Structure
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
N/A .
,
silt loam
sand
0-12 S Gleyl 2.5/10Y N/A y
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Wt 1 LAN J UM I ?r?ivurvr+ w?.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
(Circle)
No
?I
Page 2 of 2 3/20/2006
Routine On-Site Data Form
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Hoo au Grading Office Site Date: 01/23/06
Applicant/Owner: Hoopaugh Grading Company, LLC County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Ron Johnson, WPIT and Matt Jenkins 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: M
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGEl A 1 IUN
i
S Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
es
pec
Dominant Plant
1. Lonicera japonica vine FAC- 9.
2. Rubus argutus shrub FACU+ 10.
3. Rosa multiflora shrub UPL 11.
4. Liquidambarstyraciflua tree FAC+ 12.
5. Festuca spp. herb 13.
6. 14.
15.
$ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
25%
Remarks:
Less than 50% of the dominant plant species are FAC or wetter.
tiYUKULUkI T
LRecorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
corded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Pa e 1 of 2 3/20/2006
Routine On-Site Data Form g
?r,ll
Q \.J 11-.7 .
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mecklenburg fine sandy
loam 4 to
8 % slopes Drainage Class well-drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Ha lndalfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes(No)

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist). Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B 7.5YR 4/6 N/A N/A sandy silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils_ List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
.IIICTI A KIM r =_r=13 1A1A1 A-rinkl
VVC 1 I-P%IYLJ v1..1 LI\IVI - Iv
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.
Approvea oy nuuar+UC uac
Routine On-Site Data Form Page 2 of 2 3/20/2006
#? ? VQ?Y
QtNM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office .
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Office of Archives and History
Michael F. Laslcy, Governor
Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. roans, Secretary David Brook, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
February 27, 2006
Matt Jenkins
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Re: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site, Forsyth Drive, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 06-0320
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for your letter of January 24, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and- consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley; environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck
Add Telephone/Fax
Location ress
Mailing
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4617 Mail Service Center 919 733-4763/733-8653
(
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC ,
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4617 Mail Service Center 919 733-6547/715-4801
)
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC
NC
h
Ralei
t Street
Bl
N ,
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 919 733-6545/715-4801
)
g
,
,
oun
.
SURVEY & PLANNING 515
e??
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 7, 2006
Matt Jenkins and Andrea Hughes
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte NC 28273
RE: Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Charlotte, NC
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2005-1249
Dear Ms. Hughes and Mr. Jenkins:
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
I have noticed in your letters to the Natural Heritage Program that the address you are using indicates we are
part of the Division of Parks and Recreation. This is incorrect. We are a separate program within the
Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. We ask that you correct this in your address books
in order to avoid confusion in the mailroom.
The Natural Heritage Program has no records of rare species or significant natural communities within the
project area, as shown on the map included with your letter of 24 January 2006. The project is located within
500 meters of Sugar Creek, a historical location for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Laasmigona decorata), a
federally and state endangered mussel. This population was last found in 1918 and is believed extirpated.
Although our maps do not show records of natural heritage elements within the project area, we have no
evidence that rare species are not present. The area simply may not have 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. If you do find rare
species during field surveys, we encourage you to report them to the Natural Heritage Program using the
enclosed Rare Plant and Animal Field Survey Forms.
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 topographic quad map. Please
do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8700 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Misty Franklin, Botanist
NC Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One
NofthCar®lina
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet www.ncnhp.org ??tu?+?`` ?/
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper J
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Nationwide Permit No 39 Project No. 2005-1249
Photograph A. View of Unimportant Intermittent Stream A, lacing upstream.
Photograph B. View of Unimportant Intermittent Stream A, lacing aownstream.
Hoopaugh Grading Office Site
Nation" ide Permit No. 39 Project No. 2005-1249
t t ti
S
3
t
t`?u t
Photograph C. View of Perennial Stream B and adjacent Wetland AA, facing upstream.
Photograph D. View of non jurisdictional area flowing into Wetland BB, facing south.