20060558 Ver 2_401 Application_20090713

Twin Lakes
Otv - b SST U0,16
Stream Restoration
Plan
Charlotte, North Carolina
Joint Application Form and Supporting Documentation for
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION
TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND NCDENR
Prepared For
Mr. Norman Walters
Property Owners Association Inc.
Twin Lakes Business Park
5935 Carnegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28209
Prepared By:
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
[phone]
?ID
Qc@Roagb
JUL 1 3 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER 9RANCM
July 8, 2009
%K
yin",.,.M .
C' t" - oss8 0 a-
?OF W A7?R
O G
?? r
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing 14P ?J[ so
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the

Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Twin Lakes Stream Restoration and Pond Project
2b. County: Mecklenburg p T" -
2c. Nearest municinality / town- C.harlntt,-
2d. Subdivision name: Twin Lakes JUL I
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state

project no:
N/A

DENR - WATER
Ql14lITY
3. Owner Information BRAMCN
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Property Owners Assoc. Inc. Twin Lakes Business Park
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 21574-724; 06254-102
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Mr. Norman Walters
3d. Street address: 5935 Carnegie BV #200
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28209
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page I of 13
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
11

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Owner
4b. Name: Mr. Norman Walters
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Property Owners Assoc. Inc. Twin Lakes Business Park
4d. Street address: 5935 Carnegie BV #200
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28209
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Leonard S. Rindner
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
5c. Street address: 3714 Spokeshave Lane
5d. City, state, zip: Matthews, NC 28105
5e. Telephone no.: 704 904 2277
5f. Fax no.: 704 847 0185
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 02506209
Latitude: 35.3667282 N Longitude: -
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 80.8391739
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: +/- 5.35 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to UT of Long Creek/Dixon Branch
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Drained pond bed with disturbed stream channel; surrounding office park; highway and roads.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Approximately 1/2 acre I
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
+/- 650 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Stream Restoration and Pond Project for the Twin Lakes Business Park
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Small grading and construction equipment; handwork; installation of plant materials
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
%-viNa Of oiaia been ieyuesieu or vbiained for this properly /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ® Yes ® No ? Unknown
Comments: Alan Johnson NCDENR 5/26/09; Steve Chapin -
USACE 5/27/09
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
Name (if known): Leonard S. Rindner and Associates Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
jurisidictional determination 5/26/09 NCDENR; 5/27/09 USACE
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ®Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Action ID 2006630841 - Expired; DWQ - 06-0558 - Expired
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ® Pond Construction
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
363 If
Degraded
Stream
and Ditch

S1 ? P ®T
Restoration
Same
® PER
? INT
® Corps
®DWQ
3'- 6' to be
replaced
with
Restored
First
Order
Stream
216 LF
w/straight
S2 ? P ®T Restoration ® PER ® Corps 4' segments
? INT ® DWQ with few
riffles or
meanders
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 579 If
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3i. Comments: +/- 427 linear feet of 1s` order Perennial Stream will be restored
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4L Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: Existing pond indicated on USGS maps has been drained.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or purpose 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1 amenity and aquatic habitat
P2
5L Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ®No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): 22,000 SF (0.50 acres)
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): 8 to 10 acres
5k. Method of construction: excavation
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The pond and surrounding natural areas are an integral amenity of the overall atmosphere of the business park. The park
areas encourage a pleasant work environment for business and employees. The project is a stream restoration plan with
open water and park amenites.
The pond was removed as a result of the relocation and reconstruction of US Highway 21 to make room for the large 1-485/1-
77 Interchange in approximately 2004/2005. Based on a meeting with the USACE and NCDENR on 5/26/09 and 5/27/09 it
was verified that the area was in natural succession to a wetland and stream complex. A large section of the stream had been
channelized during construction and rip-rapped. Emergent and early successionional scrub/shrub wetlands were present in
the former pond bed. Disturbed areas of soil and invasive species were beginning to dominate surrounding upland areas. The
stream was determined to be perennial based nn nnsitP Pvaluatinn anfl by iitifi7inn Nr.nFniR ctrcnm no+o,. i, n+i-
Guidelines.
Based on discussions in the field with the USACE and follow-up coordination, replacing the impoundment would require
flooding wetlands and a perennial stream. This would have required an Individual Permit. Since there was no water dependent
activity that can be associated with the pond the USACE urged the development of alternatives that would have less
environmental impact permit and implied that an Individual Permit Application could be denied. The NCDENR recommended
alternative designs to avoid impacting the perennial stream and to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the wetlands. In addition,
a high hazard dam would be required to protect US Highway 21. The dam would have a large footprint and potentially impact
additional stream as a result of the impoundment
There was an understanding however that the pond and wetland area could not be sustained due to the construction impacts
and would become increasing unsightly as the stream and wetland areas degraded and invasive species began to dominate.
The area is exposed to important views from adjacent roads and that there was a desire by the business park that this area
be incorporated into the parklike setting of the business park campus.
We believe that the proposed plans creatively blends these objectives by restoring a natural riparian environment as well as
providing an amenity that will be incorporated into the business park.
1. Restores +/- 427 Linear Feet of First Order Perennial Stream including removing rip-rap.
2. Preserves and incorporates approximately 90% of the wetlands that have naturally succeeded in the pond bottom.
3. Develops +/- 1/2 acre of Open Water with approximately 8,000 linear feet of littoral zone off-stream to provide habitat as
well as a parklike amenity that can be enjoyed by the business park employees. Two sitting/picknicking areas are depicted on
the overall plan.
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Enhances +l- 16,000 SF of Existing Wetlands
5. Provides 10,000 SF of Swamp Forest Restoration
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The remaining perennial streams will be adequately barricaded and or marked to minimize the potential of inadvertant stream
impacts. Site is subject to an approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

project? ? Mitigation bank

F-1 Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diff use Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? impervious surfaces are not
proposed /o
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Project is a stream restoration using
NWP#27 to restore a stream in an existing pond bed and install amenity and habitat ponds. The area is not proposed as
a stormwater mangement facility
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? City of Charlotte
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? i_iSnnP
apply (ci iu-uk aii i.iiai appiy):
? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ? Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Project is within an existing business park development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Municipal sanitary sewer
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
?
Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ill
? A
h
ev
s
e
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Site was evaluated during the wetland delineation process for the presence of Schweinitz's Sunflower. The site is heavily
vegetated and dense in early wetland and riparian area succession. Surrounding areas are maintained lawn. Ecotonal
edges along roads and clearings were inspected to determine if Schweinitz's sunflower was present.
Project site is not in a watershed that has been identified as habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
ttp://www. nmfs. noaa. gov/habitat/ha b itatprotection/efh/G IS-i nven. htm
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7u. vJiat uatc uiu you iis6 to ueteimme wheuier yuur bite would impact historic or archeological resources!
According to the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of
registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, this site is not registered property or
property listed as being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Site is a former drained pond area which has been heavily
disturbed by road construction.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determinatM ? Mgklenburg County GIS
7
/
Leonard S. Rindner 11 7-08-09
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name 1/ Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
1. Project Name 5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #200
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID nu nber(s):
5. Site Address: Twin Lakes Parkway p
6. Subdivision Name:
7. City: N/A v
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: 035.3665211° N Long: 080.8391319° W
10. Quadrangle Name: Derita (NC) quadrangle
11. Waterway:
12. Watershed: HUC = 03050101: Upper Catawba
13. Requested Action:
V Nationwide Permit # 2-7
General Permit #
? Jurisdictional Determination Request
_ rre-Appiicauou RecluesL
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder
Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
ecimal Degrees Please)
Section 404
Begin Date
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
LEONARD S. RINDNER, PLLC
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
Fax [phone]
May 26, 2009
Mr. Norman Walters
Property Owners Association Inc.
Twin Lakes Business Park
5935 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28209
RE: Twin Lakes Business Park, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Walters:
In order to interface with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources I will need your authorization. Please sign the
following statement:
This letter authorizes Leonard S. Rindner, PWS as our firm's agent in matters related
to Waters of the U.S. and Waters of North Carolina for the referenced project site. This
includes interfacing with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Name
May 26, 2009
Date
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation. Thank
you.
S
e nard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
Profession Wetland Scientist
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILNIINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 200630841 County: Mecklenburg USGS Quad: Derita
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Twin Lakes Limited Partnership / Attn: Sandy Roper
Address: 2719 Coltsgate Road
Charlotte, NC 28211-3502
Telephone No.:
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): The proposed restoration site
is located adiacent to the east side of I-485, south of Alexandarana Road, in Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Description of projects area and activity: This permit authorizes excavation, placement of fill, and
installation of in-stream structures associated with the restoration/enhancement of 416 linear feet of
stream channel in a previously drained open water pond known as "Twin Lakes". Impacts to
stream channels and wetlands authorized by this permit are 416 linear feet of stream channel and
0.25 acre of wetlands.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
? Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached Nationwide conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation
from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate
legal action.
This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing NWPs are
scheduled to be modified, reissued.. or revoked prior to March 18. 2007. It is incumbent upon you to remain
informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you
commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide permit is
modified or revoked, you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP
to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. If prior to the expiration
date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain
valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all new and/or modified terms and
conditions. The District Engineer may, at any time, exercise his discretionary authority to modify, suspend, or
revoke a case specific activity's authorization under and NWP.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Amanda Jones at 828-271-7980 x231.
Corps Regulatory Official Amanda Jones Date: May 24, 2006
Expiration Date of Verification: March 18, 2007
-2-
Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ? Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above
described project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. ? There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the
permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a
period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
C. ® There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years
from the date of this notification.
D. ? The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action.
Please reference jurisdictional determination issued . Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: The site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual and is adjacent to stream channels that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The
stream channel on the property is an unnamed tributary to Dixon Branch which flows into the Catawba River and
ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean through the Santee-Cooper River in South Carolina.
Appeals Information: (This information does not apply to preliminary determinations as indicated by paragraph A.
above).
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object
to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331.
Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. ' If you
request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the South Atlantic Division,
Division Office at the Following address:
Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the
criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of
the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by July
24, 2006.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.
Corps Regulatory Official: Amanda Jones
Date May 24, 2006
Copy Furnished:
Len Rindner, 3714 Spokeshave Lane, Matthews, NC 28105
O?oF W aT ?RpG
4 "C
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
May 23, 2006
DWQ# 06-0558
Mecklenburg County
Mr. Sandy Roper
Twin Lakes Limited Partnership
2719 Coltsgate Road
Charlotte, NC 28211-3502
Subject: Twin Lakes Stream Restoration
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Roper:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact 416 linear
feet (If) of an unnamed tributary of Dixon Creek, a perennial stream, and 0.25 acres of wetland as part of a
stream restoration project as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on
April 3, 2006. The location of the project is Twin Lakes Parkway, south of Alexanderana Road in Mecklenburg
County. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this project is covered by Water Quality
General Certification Number 3495. 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.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design that you described in your application (unless modified
below) and will expire with the associated USACE 404 permit unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality
Certification. Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ in writing and you may be required to
submit a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. For this approval to remain valid,
you must adhere to the conditions in the attached certification and those listed below:
1. The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing upon initiation of the restoration project.
2. All construction activities associated with this project shall meet, and/or exceed, those requirements specified
in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual and shall be
conducted so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
3. It is recommended that the riprap located directly upstream of the restoration project be removed. This will
allow for the passage of aquatic life between the restored portion of the stream and those areas upstream
(which are outside the limits of the proposed impacts).
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 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. N ,ncamu»a
.Aatrrm!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Internet: www.ncwalcruualilv.org Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Page 2
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 2H.0503, and provide opportunity for public
hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.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 Ms. Polly Lespinasse in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-
1699 or Mr. Ian McMillan in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-715-4631.
Sincerely,
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Ian McMillan, Central Office Wetlands Unit
Mecklenburg Water Quality
File Copy
I ;'I 2448
Gilead Rd
W 2447 ? 2443
S 2136 ,
1•_ (3rlead Rd
i
r ? I : 2004 1 I 2446 Q?
I I I?I GIs , iI.
17
zt
?? 2138 ?,,
SITE LOCATION
2442
''8M qd ° r 2475
A ©, ?, 7459
7117 NambrighSRd' n at'
f
h
m
21 2459 ?7
???y Le?c 1 ' ? ? 2475
2074 ? °.p ? i ? f 2481 2480
2113 ?, ? II ?f ?I? ? ? 1 /? I ??r ,•''-'j' ?I ,?
croft,-
` I
? 2485 --_?? t?
Rd „a
? i ti0i . ?? 2486 ' i
? _ ?.y wr
'43 `? ' I ? I d? Many 9r?d ? -
?t i I ?Y
2025 I 21 jr ? , ?
mi i to :,?rm, 2480 a Lake%
r
2074 `a ?b _.. ?'t a
13
gle „` " ` m ,3?4 Map data 6=09 Tek Atlas
W I I I I I I I 1 180.833 3331 W I i I I I I i i i 80.$0000001° w
11 +
+1.
Ill J f`
!
t ■ xcrk. ,a. � `r, r y
Z 1' '... % /•� \t" r •J jr remr' i� in���'.'.Y irN. Z
r \
Ilk
I r`
/ "• \ {�.1
�.
� a.. _ �`` � Ill •' I � � � �..
y
J wl ..Yy 4":)
1
41
. l
LOCATION
to
to
tri x , w. I b it Imri
'y
if
,�, !
rill .x 11, .r�� � _ I .Ir r� •y � �!
JI � r r•, ti � itr
VIP
Z —71 •�( ,, IF �1i=r. _� 'j - •,t ��� !I ,���,.' .,.. 1 �:.+, 1 Z
r IN
µ.
X xM
7 wN
I r � t—
—1 1 �\
80. 66 666 W 80. 33 333 W I I I I I 1 1 80. 006004 w
TWIN LAKES
Name: DERITA Location: 035.3667282' N 080.8391739' W OLD POND BED
Date: 6/16/2009 H UC: 03050101
Scale: 1 inch equals 4000 feet APPROXIMATE SITE
LOCATION
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc

80.850 000° W 80 833 333° W 80.816 666° W
JfitY�l-� t I -. ...�179��� `A �>• ,Jc ' ( C_J J
it
i
�� r .apt )�� �� It/�� / `pl. )�� �/ ">.. I •r � �tl�r���--•tel �• ��•�. /� �.. iV � //� "\ `t \l r / --�
`' J ;;P �� 1 '�` ?� �•— ` _ r (/� � \� (, �(, � I I R Y� ^ � y 1, t� �/�r 4/+`��I ,�� �` -.w � /'"y '� ,�:
�•. S
fwill,"
— ✓ ��l•'1 - 1, � I � r r!"•'(r. F -�� /V c , '� \ ^* �\�� II � ��+�1+ -.rir � ' ,•,�'d '•� 5..,, x
`I
Z
141
Of
I(�1J �f+ "T 1r 'p^ 1 lr •tt" m
,\,_ �( r'"` �t�� -.•• � !f <; .� ,Ji i_ II 4^ f/i;, r cp
�r (
!1 I :7 (t , f ` art . 5 , �� ,�1(r 1 % �,. `('1
� /) 1�,•I� t - �T� � 4`� � *n i� ,� �t.i �`ity M
.J vy
i �l J i \.� J I / ci' 1 I Jr Hi h Sch I:= / y S t!• . II /
- I , J,, �:w -'.ES6 - �' t ir..] -.. i " � J / •% r�, 9"a'\
7
,7/ � ��%� * �., 1 . '�.� „� �- - J7 ._�� 8P2' .' 17 115 �� J� ✓�. `T,J I zi��(� ` ��.ld -)) ���'.
/✓-, ✓ `� , ( \ }
�., •' - it •.. �, _� _� C , V 8�7 '. er , , � � � �, ^ 1, i i I _
� i •_ ....i ' r r I 07tp_ `1 F)'Y I/ � I I r 1' 11
4' ' n� 177) Nm4h Mebkfehbtlr¢ JhT, —r
�7..,ee
� � ` I f I�r �`': I.�• r/. alx� �` �ti� I�Jr.A"'',1 I(I �. \ i � V, �I l �I I, IV ri. " ��� _
44
acJc
t BM ,
k i _
825 w �2AS
�w�✓� J SITE LOCATION �,f JoplPr
115 z
�+ ez3C' �o
/ 7 i
tB—
c0 i / + / ('( 459' (D
'\ �c, \ C M
L7GC(S8 - + ,• I_ �,•�_ to
IST..,
`nd.A Jrfli --
rd�-
,
1•l ; 4831
c
R ,3 2'-/ a ,% ter- �,,, _�, ,I �"�.`� � � I• _ 1 •;/
z
/
z
/0c
\ w 1
INT RCHANGE 18e.>e
(2113 L, ;.( �J. - .• .' if W c+)
'./ -fig I I ��' �..� • ., • ` F ` ."`,
! 11 l Tanks
:, �• ' ��ILJ BOrr `1 "i ,Croft r, "` n
J cr�i ..�.•�
wir' r
80.850 000° W 80.833 333° W 80.816 666° W
TWIN LAKES
Name: DERITA Location: 035.3665211° N 080.8391319° W OLD POND BED
Date: 6/16/2009 H UC: 03050101
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet APPROXIMATE SITE
LOCATION

M
0
0
35° 22' 16"
35° 21' 49"
Soil Map-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
io
0
0
35° 22' 16"
35° 21' 49"
TWIN LAKES
Map Scale. 1 4,030 if punted on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. OLD POND BED
N Meters
0 35 70 140 210 m
Feet APPROXIMATE SITE
0 150 300 600 900 LOCATION
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 6/16/2009
Conservation service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. STUDY
0604-09
APPROXIMATE MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S
*FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION
Us

B1- 3: WETLAND SEEP
b (DOES NOT CLOSE - CONTINUES OFFSITE) Al: BEGIN RPW AT CULVERT
Cl - 3: RPW THRU
RIP/RAP

MI-4&N1-4:
WETLAND

CULVERT WITH °
$ HEADWALL
(OLD/DEGRADED)
E FOOTBRIDGE

p K1- 3: RIP/RAP
LINED LINEAR Rp t
WETLAND

L1-37: E1-7&F1-7: A1-29:RPW
WETLAND RIP/RAP LINED
LINEAR WETLAND
WITH BRAIDED
,x,43 iJg STREAM FLOW }.
H1- 7: WETLAND 6A 94'
- FOOTBRIDGE
RIP/RAP
PIPE -
DID /DAD
89-44
RI'YV FROM SEDR EN POND
I?h•
A26 -END RPW
1 UPI. 5: UPLAND POCKET
Q 11 - 11 & 11- 5: WETLAND BOUNDARY
b 4h (DOES NOT CLOSE - CONTINUES OFFSITE)
iyvCULVERT
'9d
G1- 5: WETLAND BOUNDARY
(DOES NOT CLOSE - CONTINUES OFFSITE)
U
119ft
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. STUDY
0604-09
APPROXIMATE MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S
*FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION

N
Iq
CO
W
f?
I
Q
Q
r_
O
:a
C
O O
Y ?
U y
N
_ N
j C
ma a
_ c y
? o
U
W j C
N O
N ?
Y O C
m m al
N
m U
U
E c°
m
3 O G
a
LL In Q
U
? Y
L
O ?
d ?
Ey
m y
L
a+ y
In 7
In y
G1 ?
m cc
m m
J J
C C
3 .;
H ?
z
i
S
N
ia¢a
0
0
N
v
M
U
N
O
n
a
Q
E
w
ain33r�i§m�i
h
■
810m
J u
■o��gg-afl
Ell
Ia
¢3
Gia
d�
dE
h
■
' SFR .; Y "� ., m
J u
.,
TT
�v�0.1u
f ;1
I ro
...
i
� Y
w
•x� �
J J
0
"' m x t¢ d
�
4
•V
1� � �/{fes S.
/? 1,
f
��\ r
r
_
A
a
N*CIN" a ` -rl 4r t:'4.
w

Q U

N
°
c c o
?°n
M m

o E o
i
I h v E _
t
t cTU
NE-a

m
t rn° O m

I 1 r=
t
t c 3
N /9
a = ?c+ m
Ci t°
n
1 t L
\ t 0« ? U
T
z
Q \ Z 1 0 e
o$ag C I
rnv

W
In
F
10 m ?«m
- o la 15 y m
p
f _.I g U)
Z
in c0 .)
c0
0 in N

O crn

O

N c in
ON " W N T Nm w Bc O
m N

Q
o -
_-? t!7
O)CC `
gCy m., p0?
t mmn?l m 2

li O
LLI -S ml
?

a V
g
m
?
W z d UI{ m,
o
r mvra
§n
-
z c
i

/ I u
0

L W
d
i E
p I I p
m
H
c
?
C o E
O E m
N N

O O C O
C {WQ

M E -0
E-0 J
N
co 0 C C

',
h
?_ 3
? a
F H

m
?
Cl) l s

2
U m
o

m

•• ? C
w
'
o

`

,
g
Z ...
rs?1
' 1 I
o

4 )

o m I a s
s
m
?
o
? 3
?
a
3 `
J
k?
a .o.
'
?
? fl 1 c
•31 , e.?E
*{ e > N m O d. LU
rv l $_ :
> {
I
tt 1
G] ? i
M
J ] .
? 3
,,
1 F L
_ ti
? y i
?
? . R ? ? ? 1 ? - •? 4
?
T? :
o
?
z

h ,
?
gg ?I
31 i 1 I 31
? ? J?.
.. _
se ioni

? ? ? tm t ?

(
N)
uo1l
ena13 ?
a e ?
-
-?
..
_ .. 1
i 1 1
! sr
_ x
z
t a

LEONARD S. RINDNER, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
Fax [phone]
June 16, 2009
Mr. Steve Chapin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Re: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Chapin:
On behalf of my client, I am requesting written confirmation of the wetland/stream determination and
delineation for the subject property.
Proiect Name: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed
Acreage: 5.35 Acres
City/County: Mecklenburg County
Long/Lat: 035.3665211 0 N 080.8391319° W
Developer: PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
Contact: Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
General Wetland Classification and Description
The site is located on the west side of Twin Lakes Blvd, south of Alexanderana Road and is located in the
Upper Catawba River Basin. The site contains wetlands and relatively permanent waters in an old, drained
pond bed. The current land-use is a former pond and an adjacent woodland area.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Professional Wetland Scientist
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 06-16-09
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Applicant:
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: N/A
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 035.3665211° N, Long. 080.8391319',W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Dixon Branch of Long Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water(TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
Z Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
rl Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
ID Field Determination. Date(s): 06-04-09
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick`IJst "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Q Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Impoundments ofjurisdictional waters
Q Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes ofthis form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 7001inear feet: 3width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.50 acres.
Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1487 De1i<uet4tign?tnual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
n Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section 111T.
SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.I and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.I and 2
and Section III.D. L; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TN W
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.I for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section 111.6.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section II1.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 2350square miles
Drainage area: 40 acres.
Average annual rainfall: 44 inches
Average annual snowfall: 3 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 10-15 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2=5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: Unnamed RPW to Dixon Branch to Long Creek to Catawba River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 1 st.
e Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 2 feet
Average side slopes: iilt
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ®Sands ? Concrete
® Cobbles ® Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ® Vegetation. Type/% cover:
RPW's are 100% covered with herbaceous material through the old pond bed.
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Some riffle complexes exist in RPW A.
Tributary geometry: NteanderEng
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0.5 %
(c) Flow: -_ Jqw
Tributary provides for: 6easa
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 1)<-2{I
Describe flow regime: All RPW's on site flow after rain events and +48hours after an event. The upper section of
RPW A might have some dry runs during drier conditions.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete anti confined Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
r1 r1-- in tha A-,tPr of coil I-1
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? sediment deposition
? water staining ?
? other (list):
F-1 Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OH W M were used to determ
[] High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
`lectn irtinn of tr_ rractria_ 1 vearlal inn
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: The water color is clear. A slight petroleum-like smell was noted at the upper section of RPW A.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Road and parking lot run-off (oils, grease, etc).
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH W M does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OH W M has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OH W M that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): All RPW's have an intact herbaceous/sapling riparian cooridor .
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: An herbaceous fringe exists through the old pond bed adjacent to the RPW's.
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
® Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: See stream worksheets for details.
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: See stream worksheets for details.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:0.5acres
Wetland type. Explain:Old pond bed wetlands.
Wetland quality. Explain:The wetland areas are high quality wetland habitats.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: t termittent flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Discrete and ctinNied
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: UnkHawn. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 15-20 river miles from TN W.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the P4 1*t floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: Water color is clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: None known, however road/parking run-off is likely to contribute oils/greases.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):All RPW's have an intact herbaceous/sapling riparian cooridor .
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
® Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:See stream worksheets for details.
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:See stream worksheets for details.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 6
Approximately ( 0.50 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N)
L (yes)
M/N (yes)
E/F (yes)
H (yes)
1/J (yes)
B (yes)
Size (in acres)
0.2
0.01
0.08
0.05
0.15
0.01
Total: 0.50
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: The wetlands on site are contained in an
old pond bed that has been drained (except for wetland B, which is a wetland seep at the upper reach of RPW A. The wetlands
contribute to wildlife habitat and have an excellent filtering capacity.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• UVGS the lllVLLlal y, lit cuuloiuaii Ulf wiii! its aujace!!i weiianuh (if any), IIAYC Vida- icia iilup? iV it is tidy Ti?.d1, ?n-
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should he documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 111.1):
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 111.1):
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: See attached stream forms for RPW A.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: See attached stream forms for RPW D.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
13 Tributary waters: 700 linear feet3width (ft).
0 Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Q Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
El Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: The wetlands directly discharge into the RPW's.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section IIl.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.50acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
[:] Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE1 WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
'See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section II1.1).6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
1' Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act furi.sdiction Following Rapanos.
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Q Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Q Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Q Lakes/ponds: acres.
0 Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
[? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
N Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
10 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 Derita Quad.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
0 FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):2007 Polaris (Mecklenburg County GIS).
or ? Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. STUDY
0604-09
APPROXIMATE MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S
*FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION
Ir

B1- 3: WETLAND SEEP 1 m
b (DOES NOT CLOSE - CONTINUES OFFSITE) Al: BEGIN RPW AT CULVERT
Cl - 3: RPW THRU
RIP/RAP
M1-4&N1-4:
WETLAND
CULVERT WITH
8 HEADWALL,
(OLD/DEGRADED)
t ,E FOOTBRIDGE
"to
K1- 3: RIP/RAP
LINED LINEAR
WETLAND 3G
E1-7&F1-7: A1-29:RPW
RIP/RAP LINED
LINEAR WETLAND
WITH BRAIDED
STREAM FLOW Sti
H1- 7: WETLAND g4
- FOOTBRIDGE
RIP/RAP
PIPE -y
RIP/RAP
89-44
^9 "it L D1- 4- RPW FROM SEDIMENT POND
w
A28 -END RPW
1 UPI - 5: UPLAND POCKET
11 - II & J1- 5: WETLAND BOUNDARY
4 04 (DOES NOT CLOSE - CONTINUES OFFSITE)
? CULVERT
O? t
s
G1- 5: WETLAND BOUNDARY
(DOES NOT CLOSE - CONTINUES OFFSITE)
0
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. STUDY
0604-09
APPROXIMATE MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S
FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION
L1-37:
WETLAND
11
111 80.850 000° W 80.833 333° W 80.816 666° W
rJ i
17695) � � ,� ., �,:•. S f � � j �� r (� "•/'/�� J � /,
ly ) S � 1) 111
/r 1
�� ! //, �I Z rr' ^ i �h /•Il t) '\ % i,- _1 �7/ f ., ��.� �i �`. I � � '�h���' %':)yi(� ,y ��.. ? / - Irr.
h 1
�]�� tt(; ., � �� l��i "J, � �/!� �� I .:.- � 1l � l �. �� i •t�t' 1,x'/�y
t V(`�S� Z
ul:Z -7 V CJ.J f r 1 j "� \\ �, y•, 1 v 4(� h �w ="1'\
C! • (��� ,�'1.•;`l `'br/)" 11 �j ��Lk?Ip �f ,• ` r��' �' +'$ U^-``�. ;)' I�lr ;` )/j..""r M
M ) � % I i )� \ A qT% ' / t tiC t.. � it � _� i f - r=✓'T n �1 ` �?> � � I�l �-, r- ,
� � f f.i 1 J ;/ 1j ! 'tib anti. i� � I ,- % � )l ` � 111 b�.\ _ e� � • , yr���. r+ .i.rr _•- tt � / 1 (,:�3 )�� /'..
M (`-r/ r - .lJ1b - C��'`� �f 1i � r ,` '- ,i` ( f'" \\, �S a��a�"' 9,.� r-... �� j -• rl �.:"� .!� r l� 'i � �, tl . � 5 (/ C� �
L6 � / l y... j � ; / `^ j � o '% � _ y'\l � `� �,C, v ,�� .. - ly ', � i � ti.: r t •,� a� I � ,;;' ;1 �" � -' f M
'�'- J 'r ` i Its.. f . 1 /y/I'� t yt - 111 1, rr-=`• ', r ')( 7��' < -`
'
� �./ i t r � T�r... `,, • � i, r , ,/ ?, l�'(�j0.' � 1 _. kI-� � ". \ \-�Y• �'{ _ / f'i kl.
�(`�. fJ
;• , ., `� .� r - � , - i �;`j - ,r High Scsoh ,- �,, � , / I L 1 ,_
jJ(, r/
�I
fORP R�YIr
tr (11 13urth Mebklonb;rjl
ShT>�ftHVC4 I" __ r
1 >1 'e V hr�! Irl r fnlii,n fey L,
jyC{iiltlCh
825 M '
SITE LOCATION •esc ]oplpr
z 154, z
ZD
2116y
;. �. '¢Mx>.'F ��� %, �.j7 .:'� .r _ � ;�J�ja. `_` �l: ',% %I,I ,`1 y a59; 1 cID
(On
- i\ti
w t,81Ui
Lri
Lakes } ( ns' a G}r; t �f ----✓ -- .`
-J
J
(hd�emdMt���Hitl
t y r,.'�•- li' � Cdl f
i . n •\� I lIyjpu
4i.�.
dr—', ' �� �� O
/ \\
* a
.,.INT RCHMlGE 18 . ! , RM
�
to
l,l .. Tanks • �s [
r77t.<,.✓ /r/ II ' "' •, J.. rlrmlt�. •.. rI ;yrwS,2'•.4r,
[th
as t
Substation, t ('
r
80.850 000° W 1 80.833 333° W 1 80.816 666° W
TWIN LAKES
Name: DERITA Location: 035.3665211° N 080.8391319° W OLD POND BED
Date: 6/16/2009 H UC: 03050101
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet APPROXIMATE SITE
LOCATION
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc

80f66 66° W 80. 33 333° W 80. 00 000° W
u' 1 �`.r � �_��. ' � :. r `xrracw{r .� 1 ���,. )�u ,"t � C � t r '.i rtwW. I �., r ! �� "- • ,�, .. ,� �,1.
Pt C /I
��' tAri I�6�. � ,„ ! � k�,. � ♦ � � .a * � t G i , w �, } ���ra+p./ ,; 1 4 ��""' ��R I (t ! , —
to
_. f hr. X( 1 ii1XXXX a � " J h. \ g ri. n,• ".. �` .N.,a Sn
Z
Z
,t i I� y
O 5,` 1; f � I � ! � ., �'s r�`�'•=v., 1 �� r ..�r Xt � tle— i • �) r r/ /�`� �! � � r :, �kG i �
.r'P,4
d 1'
lr Ir M
{
j, 'T'!
lr�
t
ar
_.. _ t+-_� {u..M:.N :f .. _• ice. .�._ �� 1 � �I "'l"'� 4 .
! r,r r.r, + 1f - I .. ;- . ..„ Y ..M°'r, t.•Tr.� ,ts�- r�p.� t t .. I. - ! ,-..
_ 1 ,. .. T _ E' "• '_-.... �.� � n."t \ � Gro
Z
Z 1 SITE LOCATION
a.oM, n
:mss
1 R f
AM
`; 1 t i r IrfsYOVfll IB f-.-+�-
rf�r,._;;' tit - •r.ty '.` •F .. t ,.t
IL
i I
/ r.., r •�. 4 li. ~ �.t r.ti�- � -.�� 1'� � ,� � t?I � � , wli.. � 1 k ;z� 1�
Z
.tai»:... lti•�t �. tt" '„ �y�,, �
, 1
80.66464 W
Name: DERITA
Date: 6/16/2009
Scale: 1 inch equals 4000 feet
80.8333333" W
Location: 035.3667282° N 080.8391739° W
H UC: 03050101
, maptecn, Inc.
80.8000000P W' ' '
_F TWIN LAKES
OLD POND BED
APPROXIMATE SITE
LOCATION

Soil Map-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
M
b
0
35'22'16"
¦
35° 21' 49"
(o
a
e 35° 22' 16"
m

*011111, 1
35° 21'49"
TWIN LAKES
Map Scale ?14,030 if printed on A size (8. 5"x11")sheet . OLD POND BED o
0
N Meters
0 35 70 140 210
Feet APPROXIMATE SITE
0 150 300 600 900 LOCATION
U
il? SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 6/16/2009
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
m
C
2
m
U
L
0
Z
c
7
0
U
a
a
c
m
U
al
Z
0
O
U.
Z
IL
CQ
G
O
2
W
W
J
a
8 n
o E
N a)
O U
N N m
dn
_ 'E
d
x U a)
L
In a) N
ao 3 C
O E
N N L
j U
Q o m
c T d
0 o cc
° c m
m a
E N
CL O
O M a
M w d
O y Y
7 C N
Z ° N
T
-jo
N a)
U
N 41 0
R t d m
2- P a E
O ?
C
N
m ? r
v ° v 3 c `o
C O C ` c
oy c o -tmE
o O Y
p
m N
0 V U U a N a O
C cn L N_ y O N
Z .C
Z z
U
7 ?T
UZ L
I c? r 3 w m«
N N^ cn
ar 5 UpN O' CO dQ a)
a a
v >
° m Lm cm Q o ° a
m
T
N`N E o c? r Ea
?r? °. d.o 2 CL m
ma d m
7 _ -, U p O a a m w N
?? 3
m ? m v; N L C ,d
Z E C- O N O m
min m a v v
0 0) a)
y O? N v m ,E O :5 T a 7
T N m m O
0Cn .U r Q•m M = C Na
O l9 'O Q m 0 .D
O C O ?n a) Z
U N 'O O. a) CO N N O .a p m
t?`o N> dEmE
O O L O 7 m L p
(n?iU H« cnco H U oo

?" N
C N
l6
m 3>i
y N
••
gy li. Z' ? ? yyyy??? m m N ? b
? r
T C9 (n U = !n ?' D 2 J

•
4
t U.

a

a
w + l 1
IL 3
o v
Q o
y d
E Z y a
N m N
v LL,
7 _p
3: 2 2 CL
U) a
3 N = ID U a O. w cn
C
v
m 5 >
m $ 3 8 D 4 a_ LL o as c O (D (? o Q U) Vv c: c
v 8 0
$ m c) o J J m a f U) co (on Vn V) co U) !n
$ ® .? 5c !+? > + .. I?I o Ili v
o
N N
O d
(0 m
a
T
Q
Z
7
N W
N p
T (n
a)
Z >
u
= a)
0 p.
cn o
aV
m
! c
O
Z
w
V
N C
ar
of
E?
7 c
0
y O
Q) ?
N y
« CC
ZU
O?
?1
Soil Map-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (NC119)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
ApB Appling sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent 6.4 8.5%
slopes
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent 24.5 32.4%
slopes, eroded
CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 21.2 28.1%
percent slopes, eroded
EnB Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent 4.7 6.2%
slopes
HeB Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent 3.8 5.0%
slopes
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent 2.8 3.7%
slopes
VaD Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent 1.8 2.3%
slopes
W Water 6.0 7.9%
WkD Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 4.4 5.9%
Totals for Area of Interest 75.7 100.0%
l/SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 6/1612009
.1liew Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
WETLAND "B" LOOKING UPSLOPE FROM RPW "A"
"A"- SERIES RPW NEAR CULVERT UNDER TWIN LAKES BLVD
WETLAND "H" LOOKING UPSLOPE FROM RPW "A"
RPW "A" AND RPW "C"
RPW "D" LOOKING UPSLOPE TOWARD FOOT BRIDGE
WETLAND "H" LOOKING AT RPW "A"
WETLAND "I/J/G" LOOKING DOWNSLOPE
LINEAR WETLAND "E & F" LOOKING DOWNSLOPE
WETLAND "L & K" LOOKING UPSLOPE
WETLAND "L & K" LOOKING UPSLOPE
WETLAND "M/N" LOOKING UPSLOPE
EXITING CULVERT B/W WETLAND "L" AND WETLAND "M/N"
Applicant:
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
DATAFORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed Date: 06-0409
Applicant/Owner: See above County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: Todd Warren 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:
[
s the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No ? Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I Corunus florida Tree FACU 9
2 Quercus phellos Tree FACW- 10
3 Pinus elliottii Tree FACW 11.
q Ulmus alata Tree/Shr FACU+ 12.
5 Ilex opaca Shrub FAC- 13
6 Juniperus virginiana Shrub FACU-_ 14.
7 Elaeagnus umbellate Shrub NI 15
8 Lonicera japonica Vine FAC- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 4:8, or 50%
Remarks:
I
I
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
? Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): CeB2, Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded Drainage Class: well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine, kaotinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? /Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
inches Horizon (Munsell_ Moist) (Munsell_Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10YR 5/4 Sandy Loam
8-15 B 7.5YR 5/6 Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
IL_
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
AaDrovpd by HCY NACF
Applicant:
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed Date: 06-04-09
Applicant/Owner: See above County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: Todd Warren State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? ? Yes No Community ID: WETLANDS
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No ? Transect ID: 1/J; H
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No ? Plot ID: (similar)
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
i Salix nigra Tree OBL q
2 Acer rubrum Tree FAC tp
3 Sambucus nigra var. canadensis Shrub FACW- 11,
q Ulmus rubra Shrub FAC 12
5 Carex crinita Herb FACW+ 13.
g. Impatiens capensis Herb FACW 14,
Sesbania punicea Herb FAC+ 15
Q Leersiaoryzoides Herb OBL i
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
II
If
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
? Aerial Photographs V Inundated
Other ? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0-6 (in.) ? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
? FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
These wetlands exist in an old pond bed.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): W, Water (old pond bed location) Drainage Class: N/A
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): N/A Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description :
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munseii Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10YR 3/1 10YR 6/8 20% Silty Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
-Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
These wetlands exist in an old pond bed. Soil survey data shows "w" indicating the location of water. Soils are indicative of an old pond bed
and are limited in their usefulness.
I?
(I
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? /Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
No (Circle) I (Circle)
No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? /Yes No
Approved by HCIUSACE 3;92
Applicant:
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed Date: 06-04-09
Applicant/Owner: See above County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: Todd Warren State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? ? Yes No Community ID : WETLANDS
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No ? Transect ID: L; E/F; M/N
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No ? Plot ID: (similar)
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Salix nigra Tree OBL 9
2. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 10
3, Liquidambar styraclflua Tree FAC+ 1'1.
q Cornus amomum Shrub FACW+ 12.
5 Leersia oryzoides Herb OBL 13
g Impatiens capensis Herb FACW iq
7. 15.
8. 1f.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 100°
Remarks:
II
?I
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
? Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0-6 (in.) ? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12°
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 I,in.) Local Soil Survey Data
? FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
These wetlands exist in an old pond bed.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): W, Water (old pond bed location) Drainage Class: N/A
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): N/A Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell__Moist) (Munself_Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10YR 3/1 10YR 6/8 20% Silty Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol v/ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Suffidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
These wetlands exist in an old pond bed. Soil survey data shows "w" indicating the location of water. Soils are indicative of an old pond bed
and are limited In their usefulness.
IL_
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? /Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
No (Circle) (Circle)
No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ?/ Yes No
'192
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 14.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
1 In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9' Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ©0
Yes = 3
' Men-made ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
G u,,.i..,i...,,, = 6.5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 O 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H ric soils (redoximo hic features) resent? No= 0 Yes 1.5
= 9.75
-1 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel
3
C2) 1
1
0
21'. Rooted plants in channel
22. Cravflsh 3
0 2
0.5 1
r 0
t-5
23. Bivalves CO) 1 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (noto divorsity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae: penphyton
28. Iron oxidizin bactena4un9us- 0
0 1
_0.5 2
1 3
1.5
29'. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5: FACW = .75 C4. = 1.5 SAV = 2.0: Other = 0
items zu and zt tocus on me presence of upiana prams, nenrzu tocuses on the presence ou,, aquatic or weuana plants
Sketch
Notes Luse back side of this form for additional notes)
Crayfish, salamanders : common
3' -6' wide,.1 - 2' deep CHAN 8' - 10 wide, 5'-8' deep @T.O.B. Beetle (Coleoptera): rare
Sand, gravel, few cobble; few riffle/pool
Cranefly larvae (Diptera) :rare
Sinuous, incised, some eroding banks
Adult damselfly observed
Abutting spring/wetland
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
USACE AID# DWQ #
Site #+_ (indicate on attached map)
s STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's ttame Len Rindner
3. Date of evaluation June 2, 2009
5. Name of stream: perRP W A 1
7. Approximate drainage area 0.1 acre
9. Lenittli of reach evaluated +/- 150'
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latituck(. 34.972312): 35.36799 N
2. Evaluator's name Jeff Levi, Patrick Kealy
4. Time of evaluation: 1:00 PM
6. River basin: Upper Catawba(03050101)
8. Stream order: I st
10. County: Mecklenburg
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (c:. -77 556611) 80.83758 W
Method location determined (circle): GPS She Ottbo (Aenal) Photo;GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach neap identifying stream(s) location):
1 77 /1485, Alexanderana Rd, Twin Lakes
14. Proposed channel work (if any)
15. Recent weather conditions: Dry last 48 hrs
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry last 48 hrs
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ( If yes. estunate the water surface area-
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use _% Residential Commercial 90 % Industrial _°lo Agricultural
10 °/o Forested ^°/n Cleared I Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 8' - 10' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank). 5' - 8'
24. Channel slope down center of stream 2 Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%0) -Steep (>100/0)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends -2j--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 ecotegion. Assign points
to each chametenstic within the range shown for the ecoregron. Page 3 provides a bnef 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
cnaracrensuc cannot be evamated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation to the
comment section. there there are obvious changes in the character of a sueam 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 evahutte 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): 51 Comments: perRPW Al was evaluated from upper culvert down to walking
bridge.
Evaluafor's SigaatureV-d hsr!G Date June 2, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landamters and err ironmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineen to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quaWr•. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular rttitigation ratio at, requirement. Fort sut Ject to change - verstnn 06'03 To Comment please call 919-876-8431 x 76
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Twin Lakes perRPW Al
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
C
RE
# CHARACTERISTICS ' S
O
- Coasb(I Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools In stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; swan flow = max
points) Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(extensive alteration ? 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
(no buffer = 0: contiguous, wide buffer = max pints

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
(extensive discha es = 0• no discha cs = max Dints
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
(no discharge = 0; springs. seeps, wetlands. etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
U
4

0-4

0-2

1
(no flood lain = 0. extensive flood lain - max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding = max into
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 2
acent wetlands - max points)
no wetlands = 0; la Mc ad
0 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channeli7:ation =0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input
(extensive deposition= 0:1ittie or no sediment = max points
1 I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA; ' 0-4 0-5
2
(fine. homogenous - 0: large, diverse sizes max Dints
12 Evidence of channel Incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
?i (deeply incised = 0: stable bed & banks = max points)
F+
l3 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(severe erosion = 0: no erosion stable banks = max points)

d
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
N (no visible toots - 0. dense roots throughout= max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(subsrstntial impact ?: no evidence = max ints
16 Presence of ritfte-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
3
(no riMes/riles or pools = 0; well-devclopcd - max points)
17 llabitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
E+ (littl
h
bit
= 0
f
i
i
d h
bit
=
i 3
e or no
. var
a
at
:
ee uen
e
a
ats
max o
nty
M 18 Canopy coverage over streambed U-5 0-5 U-5

(no shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = max points) 4
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* > 0-4 0-4
2
t I embedded - 0• loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0
-4
0-5
0-5

7?+ no evidence = 0. common. numerous types = max ints) 2
0 2 t Presence of amphibians
* 0-4 0-4 0-4
0 (noevidence =0: common, numerous types - max
nts 3
0 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
0
(no evidence = 0. common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wilditre use 0-6 0-5 0-5
too evidence - 0. abundant evidence - max points) 2
TOW Points Possible 100 100 100 ' 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 51
Thew charu,-w istics are not assessed in coastal strcams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: June 2, 2009 Project:Twin Lakes Latitude: 35.36682 N (NAD83)
Evaluator: JL, PK Site: perRPW A2 Longitude: 80.83820 W
Total Points: Other Derita, NC quad
Stream is at least uNernrrtterrt 32.5 County: Mecklenburg County e ,g Uaad Name:
it? 1Q,-)r -rennial if z 30
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = 12.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
V. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 _ 3
2. Sinuosity ---? 0 1 2 3
3 In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
--
9 a-Natural levees 0
--
0
------------
1

2 _3 _-

3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ©0
Yes = 3
Men-made ditches are not rated; see discuss;ons in manual
_i _ 7 F 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or graving season 0 1 O 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1,5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils (redoximo hic features) resent? No = 0 Yes 1.5
, ic.d.....-1 _ 195
1
20' Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21'. Rooted plants in channel
22. Crayfish 3
0 2
0.5 1 0
1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphib ans 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (noto divorsity and atxrndanco) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae: penphyton
28. Iron oxidizln bacLen a Yun us

29'. Wetland plants in streambed 0 1 2 3
! Q Q 5 1 1 5
--- - - -_- 1
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items zU 3n011 torus on lne ptr since Ot Uk110110 Plants, 1101 LU IUCULUS Un 111u P1 V-AM Ice v ayuam u1 wvuuiiu Name,
`_ikfirft_
Note; WSP back Side of this form fry additional not?s )
Crayfish, salamanders, fish : common
2'- 3' wide, .6'- 2' deep CHAN; 2'- 3' wide,.6' - 3' deep @T.O.B. Beetle (Coleoptera): common
Sand, few gravel, few cobble; old rip-rap
Midge (Diptera) :common
Fish
Damselfly, dragonfly (Odonata): common
Abutting springs/wetlands, old pond bottom (some braided chan.) Cranefly adults(Diptera); larvae expected
.
USACE AID#
DWQ0
Site 0 (indicate on attached trap)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Apphcant's name: Len Rindner
2. Evaluator's name Jeff Levi Patrick Kealy
3. Date of evaluation. June 2 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 2:00 PM
5. Name of stream: perRP W A2
7. Approximate drainage area +/- 0.14 acre
9. Length of reach evaluated +/- 150'
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decunal degrees.
6. River basin: Upper Catawba (03050101)
8. Stream order: 1 st
10. County: Mecklenburg
12. Subdivision nacre (if any)
Latitude (ea 34122312): 35.36682 N Longitude (ex.-773566tn) 80.83820 W
Method location determined (circle): GPS She Ortha (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach raider evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
177 /1485, Alexanderana Rd, Twin Lakes Py
14. Proposed channel work (if any)
21. Estimated watershed land use _% Residential % Commercial 90 % Industrial _°fo Agricultural
10 % Forested _% Cleared Logged _% Other (
15. Recent weather conditions: Dry last 48 hrs
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry last 48 hrs
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutneut Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed __(I-IV)
18. Is them a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes. estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
22. Bankfull width. 2' - 3' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 0.6'-3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4°/a) -Moderate (4 to 100/o) -Steep (>10%)
25. Charunel siuwsity. _Stmight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander -very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begun by determining the most appropriate eeoregion 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 ecoregton. 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
?L?????-W? lNl{1Vl K CV3tlttWlLl YtlZ iV •JIIC Vt 4Y Ct1?l/Cl ??-J:..___ _-a__ n -- .L_ L__ 'J .t_.
1.{iatl tlt 4C11>t{l LL11WllV{L>, C1tlU V W LL1C >lUtlll=[ VUA 311111 IJIUYIUC 3A11 CJIIJId1WUV11 111 IA1C
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, mth a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 53 Comments: perRPW A2 was surveyed below walking bridge.
Evaluator's Sienature V, ? Date June 2, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and ensironmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Cotes of Engineers to make a pretiminary assessment of steam
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular ni igation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06'03 To Comment, please call 919-576-8441 x ?6

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Twin Lakes perRPW A2
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS '
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(no flow or saturation =0• stmn flow=max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0 S
1
(extensive alteration : 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
(no buffer = 0; ennti ?uous wide buffer =max Dints

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
(extensive dischar es = 0• no discha es = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
(no discharge = 0; s fin = . seeps, wetlands etc. = max oint%
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
(no flood lain - 0: extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment I floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 3
a (deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding = max points)
K Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 3
acent wetlands - max points)
no wetlands = 0;1 ge ad
4 Channel sinuosity 0_ 5 0. ?} 0- 3 2
(extensive chauneli7ation = 0• natural meander ==x points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment= max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 0-4 0-3 2
(fine, homogenous = 0: large, diverse sizes = max points
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
?W (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks - max point-.)
H
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
a (severe erosion = 0: no erosio stable banks= max points)

14 Rout depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
F' (no visible roots - 0: dense mots throughout- max points)

I S Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0: no evidences: = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pooltripple-pool 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 3
y little or no habitat = 0; frequent. varied habitats = max points)
,
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
points)
(no shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = max
0-5
0-5
0-5

2
l4 -
Substrate embeddeduess
NA*
0-4
0-4

2
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates lsec page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous types = max oints) 3
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
J (no evidencc = 0. common. numerous types = max points)
0 22 Presence of rub
0-4
0-4
0-4

2
(no evidence = 0. common
numerous types = max Dints
.
d3 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
2
(no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100 100
TOTAL. SCORE (also enter on fitstpage) ! 53
Thcw chw=tcristics am not sssesseJ in coastal sucams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: June 2, 2009 Project:TvAn Lakes Latitude: 35.36675 N (NAD83)
Evaluator: JL, PK Site: seaRPW D Longitude: 80.83886 W
Total Points: Other Derita, NC quad
Scream fs at ieasf mterrnment 20.75 County: Mecklenburg County e g Quad Name:
rf? 9NornArennkNAa30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 7 Absent Weak Moderate strong
12. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3 _
2- Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3 In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7, Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ©0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated, see discussons in manual
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 O 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
18, Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils (redoximo hic features) resent? No = 0 Yes 1.5
r - 8.25 i
20 Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 t 0
22. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
- - -
-
1.5
---
23. Bivalves U 1 r 2 ? 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25, Amphibians 0 0, 1 1,5
26. Macrobenthos (note divorsity and abtmdancri) 0 0. 1 1.5 I
27. Filamentous algae: penphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oAdizing bbacterialfun us 0 0. 1 1.5
2'. Wetland plants in streambed FA,- = 0.5; FACW = .75 OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
118rns 2u and 21 focus on Inc presence of upland plants- nem 2a fccusos on tnu pn;tencu. u uyuaut ua wuuanu Pill -,
Sketch:
Notes Iuse back side of this form for additional notes )
Crayfish, salamanders : common
2'- 4' wide, 0' - .5' deep CHAN; 3'- 5' wide, 1' -4' deep @T.O.B. Beetle (Coleoptera): common
Sand, few gravel; few cobble; old rip-rap
Midge, mosquito (Diptera) :common
Incised, low sinuosity
Damselfly (Odonata): common
Below detention basin
Cranefly adults(Diptera); larvae expE
1 e
USACE AID# DWQ # Site (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Apphcanl-s name: Len Rindner
3. Date of evaluation: June 2 2009
5. Name of stream: seaRP W D
7. Appro)m=te drainage area +/- 0.064 acre
2. Evaluator's mane: Jeff Levi Patrick Kealy
4. Tune of evaluation: 3:00 PM
6. River basin: Upper Catawba (03050101)
8. Stream order: 1st
9. Leaath of reach evaluated +/- 50' 10. County: Mecklenburg
il. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decunal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex.3a.872312): 35.36675N Longitude (ex.-77556611)` 80.83886 W
Method location determined (circle): GPS ? Onho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
1 77 / 1485, Alexanderana Rd, Twin Lakes Py
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Dry last 48 hrs
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry last 48 hrs
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ©O If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey° YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use -% Residential _% Commercial 90 % industrial _% Agricultural
10 % Forested -% Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankftdl width: 3' - 5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of batik): 1'-4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream X Flat (0 to 2%) `Gentle (2 to 40/.) Moderate (4 to 1004) -Steep (>100/4)
25, Channel sutuosity: -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 chatactens a 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
-A ..«....:.te n{e--fjen n fhn
iuaa e?-?cauu< ?1uu.v. uc ua.cu u as ? a .. ca.,.c. ?,....,...,.,,,.?. ...... ...., ,... .?.^.;.;.e, .,.........,. r,.......? .... °??.....?..,..._•
comment section. Where time 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): 40 Comments: seaRPW D was surveyed below a small detention pond and a
walking bridge
Evaluator's SignatureFIV-1 d Date June 2, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06'03 To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x ?6
f f,
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Twin Lakes seaRPW D
ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(no flour or saturntion = 0• strong flow = mex
points) Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0_ S 1
(extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0--4 2
(extensive dischar es=0• no discha cs= max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
(no discharge = 0: springs. sccps? wetlands, etc. = max
points) Presence of adjacent floodpiain 0-4 0-4 0-2 1
(no flood lain - 0. extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment J floodplain access 0- 5 6 4 0- 3 1
(deeply entrenched= 0. frequent flooding= max oints}
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
acent wetlands - max points)
no wetlands = 0: I !e ad
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
(extensive channe(i7ation = 0• natural meander = max iws
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
(extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA' 0-4 0-5 1
fine. homogenous = 0. large, diverse sizes - max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(deeply incised = 0: stable bed & banks - max points)
F`
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
D-5
0-5
3
(severe erosion = 0. no erasion stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density an banks 0-3 D-4 0-5
2
(no visible roots= 0: dense mots throughout = max points)

I S Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0: no evidence= max points
16 Presence of riffle-poWripple-pool complexes 0-3 0 - 5 0-6
2
(no riffles/ripples, les or pools - 0; welWvelo - max points)

' 17 Ilabliat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
(little or no habitat =0-. fie uent. varied habitats= max points)
!>?
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
ao shadi v elation = 0: continuous canopy = max points)
l9 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0• loose stmctum = max

20 Presence of stream invertehrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0: common, numerous types = max ints)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
3
(no evidence = W common. numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no cvickatcc = 0: common. auirnrous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
2
(no evidence - 0: abundant evidence = max points)
ToW Points Possible 100 104 100
--------------- 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on firstpage) 40
4 These char=tcristics ate not assessed in coastal streams.