20051497 Ver 2_401 Application_20090721

1.1
i 1 CWS
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 - Phone
704-527-1133 - Fax
Date: 7-17-09
CWS Project 2008-2223

TO: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
?$AIID
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Ataached ?Under separate cover via the following items:
? Prints ? Plans ? JD Package ? Specifications
? Copy of letter ? Change order ? Wetland Survey ® Other
II' LNULUNUKhN AKh NUI AN NUILD. KINDLY NUM' Y UN Al UNUh
1 7/17/09 6 McAlpine Creek Enviornmental Restoration Project NWP 3, 27, and 33 and
WQC Nos. 3687, 3689, and 3688 application
2 7/17/09 1 Application fee check ($570)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
?For approval ?Approved as submitted ?Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ?Approved as noted ?Submit copies for distribution
?As requested ?Returned for corrections ?Return corrected prints
?For review and comment ?For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Cyndi,
Please find attached permit application and application fee for the McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration
Project in Charlotte, NC. Pease do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this
Copy to: File
4 9@0 V/a
Thank you, 0
4a JUL 2 1 2009
DENR WATER QUALITY
$mas Blackwell WEtLANDSANDSTORMNATERBRMCH
Project Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • NEW YORK
?,
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
STORM 600 E. Fourth Street
_?....- .:WATER Charlotte, NC 28202
Fax [phone]
Services
July 16, 2009
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Subject: McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration Project Permitting
City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find attached a Nationwide Permit application for the McAlpine Creek Environmental
Restoration Project located between Providence Road and Sardis Road in Charlotte, North
Carolina. This is a joint project between Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services and
Mecklenburg Park and Recreation that will improve aquatic resource functions in the main stem
of McAlpine Creek and its tributaries as well as provide recreation opportunities to nearby
residents.
We anticipate that this project will generate stream mitigation credits which will be applied to the
City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank (Umbrella Bank). A final Site
Specific Mitigation Plan (SSMP) for this project will be submitted to the Interagency Review
Team under a separate cover. The SSMP will set out the number and type of credits which will
be applied to the Umbrella Bank. No credits are being requested at this time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704-432-0966 or [e-mail] should you have
any questions or comments regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Jarrod Karl
Mitigation Administrator
Attachments: Nationwide Permit Application
•
To report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311
http://stormwater.charmeck.org
(31ARIHMI 0.
i
L CWS
Carolina Wetland Services
July 16, 2009
Ms. Amanda Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 27, and 33
and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3687, 3689, and 3688
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2008-2223
The McApline Creek Environmental Restoration Project is located along approximately 5,200 linear
feet of McAlpine Creek from Sardis Road to Providence Road (NC-16) in Charlotte, North Carolina
(USGS Site Map, enclosed). The purpose of this project is to restore the geomorphic stability and
enhance the aquatic habitat of this reach of McAlpine Creek and adjacent tributaries. McKim &
Creed has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting
services for this project.
Applicant Name: Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency (LUESA)
Contact Name: Mr. Jimmy Gordon
Mailing Address: 700 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-336-3871
Street Address of Project: McAlpine Creek between Sardis Road and Providence Road
Waterway: UT's to McAlpine Creek and McAlpine Creek
Basin: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.13230°, W80.77371 °
USGS Quadrangle Name: Charlotte East and Weddington, NC 1991 and 1988 respectively
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area consists primarily of wooded floodplain with adjacent
residential areas and mowed lawns. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracii lua), box elder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg
County, on-site soils consist of Cecil sandy clay loam (Ce132), Wilkes loam (WkE and WkD), and
Monacan loam (MO). Cecil and Wilkes soils are well-drained, while Monacan soils are somewhat
poorly-drained. Monacan soils are listed by the NRCS as soils with hydric inclusions for
Mecklenburg County/.
1 United States Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
z NRCS Hydric Soils of North Carolina, December 15, 1995.
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3. 27, and 33 CWS Proiect No. 2008-2223
Jurisdictional Delineation
On May 21, 2008, August 12 and 14, 2008, and April 29, 2009 scientists from CWS delineated (flagged
in the field) and classified on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. using the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) - Routine On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.3 There are five jurisdictional wetland areas located
within the project area (Wetlands AA-EE). Routine On-Site Data Forms representative of Wetlands AA
- EE and adjacent upland areas are enclosed (DPI - DP7). Jurisdictional stream channels were
classified according to recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)', USACE, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance. NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms and
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets representative of Streams A - D have been enclosed
(SCP1 - SCP4). NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms representative of non jurisdictional features
have also been enclosed (SCP5 and SCP6) and a USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
has been included for Stream A.
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are four
jurisdictional stream channels (Streams A, B, C (McAlpine Creek), and D), five jurisdictional wetland
areas (Wetlands AA - EE), and one jurisdictional open water area (Pond FF) located within the
project area (Figure 1, enclosed). On-site jurisdictional waters include McAlpine Creek and unnamed
tributaries to McAlpine Creek. McAlpine Creek is within the Catawba River basin (HU # 030501035)
and is rated "Class C waters" by the NCDWQ. Linear footage and acreage of on-site jurisdictional
waters are summarized in Table 1, below.
Table 1. On-Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdiction SCP NCDWQ USACE Approx. A
r
x

Jurisdictional

Feature
USACE/EPA

Rfl anos
p
Classification

Intermittentl

Perennial

No./ DP

No.
Stream

Classification
Score
Stream

Assessment
Score
Length

Linear
Feet
(1n pp
.
o
Acreage
(ac)
Stream A Seasonal RPW Important
Intermittent SCP1 28 37 395 0.08
Stream B Perennial RPW Perennial SCP2 36.5 53 2,195 0.23
Stream C
(McAlpine
Creek)
Perennial RPW
Perennial
SCP3
51
61
5,268
2.72
Stream D Perennial RPW Perennial SCP4 40 50 646 0.26
Channel Subtotal: 8,504 3.29
Wetland AA Adjacent to Perennial RPW DP3 N/A N/A N/A 0.34
Wetland BB Adjacent to Perennial RPW DP3 N/A N/A N/A 0.11
Wetland CC Adjacent to Perennial RPW DP5 N/A N/A N/A 1.32
Wetland DD Adjacent to Perennial RPW DP4 N/A N/A N/A 0.55
Wetland EE Adjacent to Perennial RPW DP7 N/A N/A N/A 0.06
Wetland Subtotal: N/A 2.38
Pond FF Adjacent to Perennial RPW N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.56
Open Water Subtotal: N/A 1.56
On-Site Total: 8,504 7.23
3 Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
4 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999. Stream Classification Method. Version 2.0.
5 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974.
2
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 27, and 33 CWS Project No. 2008-2223
Intermittent Streams
Stream A is approximately 395 linear feet in length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A was evaluated to
be an important intermittent stream and exhibited a strong bed and banks, average ordinary high water
widths of 8-10 feet, weak to moderate flow during drought conditions, and substrate consisting of silt,
coarse sand, gravel and cobbles. Biological sampling within this portion of Stream A resulted in a
weak presence of amphibians. Due to the evidence of flow for at least three consecutive months a
year, this portion of Stream A was classified as a Seasonal Relatively Permanent Water (RPW)
according to USACE/EPA guidance. Important Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A scored 37 out of
a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 28 out of a possible
71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP1, enclosed).
A representative photograph of Important Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A is enclosed as
Photograph A.
Perennial Streams
Stream B is approximately 2,195 linear feet in length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream B was evaluated to
be perennial and exhibited strong bed and banks, average ordinary high water widths of 3-6 feet,
moderate flow during drought conditions, and substrate consisting of silt, coarse sand, gravel and
cobbles. Biological sampling within this portion of Stream B resulted in a weak presence of crayfish
and macrobenthic invertebrates. Due to the evidence of typical year round flow, Stream B was
classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW) according to USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial
RPW Stream B scored 53 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheet and scored 36.5 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form,
indicating perennial status (SCP2, enclosed).
Stream C (McAlpine Creek) is approximately 5,268 linear feet in length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream
C was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited a strong bed and bank, strong riffle-pool sequences,
average ordinary high water widths of 15-30 feet, strong flow during drought conditions, and substrate
consisting of silt to medium gravel with a few larger cobbles and boulders. Biological sampling
within Stream C resulted in a strong presence of crayfish, fish, amphibians, and macrobenthic
invertebrates. Stream C also had a moderate presence of filamentous algae and iron oxidizing
bacteria. Due to the evidence of typical year round flow, Stream C was classified as a relatively
permanent water (RPW) according to USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream C scored 61 out
of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and scored 51 out of
71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP3,
enclosed).
Stream D is approximately 646 linear feet in length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream D was evaluated to
be perennial and exhibited strong bed and banks, average ordinary high water widths of 15-20 feet,
moderate flow during drought conditions, and substrate consisting of silt, coarse sand, gravel and
cobbles. Biological sampling within this portion of Stream D resulted in a moderate presence of
crayfish and amphibians and a weak presence of fish and macrobenthic invertebrates. Due to the
evidence of typical year round flow, Stream D was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW)
according to USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream D scored 50 out of a possible 100 points
on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and scored 40 out of 71 possible points on the
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP4, enclosed). A photograph of
Perennial RPW Stream D is enclosed as Photograph B.
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3. 27, and 33 CWS Protect No. 2008-2223
Wetlands
Wetlands AA (approximately 0.34 acres) and BB (approximately 0.11 acres) are located in the central
portion of the project area on the southern side of McAlpine Creek within the floodplain (Figure 1,
enclosed). These forested wetland areas are hydrologically connected to McAlpine Creek. Dominant
vegetation within this area includes green ash (Fmxinus pennsylvanica), box elder (Acer negundo), red
maple (Acer rubrum), and lurid sedge (Carex lurida). These wetland areas exhibited low chroma soils (10
YR 6/1), many distinct mottles (7.5YR 5/6), water stained leaves, and saturation within the upper 12 inches
of the soil profile. A Routine On-Site Determination Form representative of Wetland AA and BB is
enclosed (DP3). A photograph of Wetland AA is enclosed as Photograph C.
Wetland CC (approximately 1.32 acres) is located in the western portion of the project area on the northern
side of McAlpine Creek within the floodplain (Figure 1, enclosed). This forested wetland area is
hydrologically connected to McAlpine Creek. Dominant vegetation within this area includes green ash, box
elder, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), green arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), and lurid sedge. This
wetland area exhibited low chroma soils (10 YR 5/2), many distinct mottles (7.5YR 4/6), drift lines,
standing water, water marks, sediment deposits, drainage patterns, and saturation within the upper 12 inches
of the soil profile. A Routine On-Site Determination Form representative of Wetland CC is enclosed (DP5).
A photograph of Wetland CC is enclosed as Photograph D.
Wetland DD (approximately 0.55 acres on-site) is located in the central portion of the project area on the
southern side of McAlpine Creek within the floodplain (Figure 1, enclosed). The majority of Wetland DD
is located off-site. This forested wetland area is hydrologically connected to McAlpine Creek. Dominant
vegetation within this area includes green ash, box elder, red maple, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), fringed
sedge (Carex crinita) and lurid sedge. This wetland area exhibited water stained leaves, saturation to the
surface of the soil profile, and inundation in some areas. A Routine On-Site Determination Form
representative of Wetland DD is enclosed (DP4). A photograph of Wetland DD is enclosed as Photograph
E.
Wetland EE (approximately 0.06 acre) is located in the western portion of the project area on the southern
side of McAlpine Creek within the floodplain (Figure 1, enclosed). This forested wetland area is
hydrologically connected to McAlpine Creek. Dominant vegetation within this area includes green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), box elder (Acer negundo), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua)), slippery elm,
fringed sedge (Carex crinita), lurid sedge, and poison ivy. This wetland area exhibited drift lines, sediment
deposits on leaves, water stained leaves, and wetland drainage patterns. A Routine On-Site Determination
Form representative of Wetland EE is enclosed (DP7). A photograph of Wetland EE is enclosed as
Photograph F.
Open Water Areas
Pond FF (approximately 1.56 acres) is located on the northern side of McAlpine Creek (Figure 1, enclosed).
Pond FF is a man-made pond serving as a storm water detention pond for an apartment complex. Pond FF
has a hydrological connection to Wetland CC.
Non-Jurisdictional Features
Additional drainage features are located to the south of McAlpine Creek and were investigated during the
field survey. These features both displayed a discontinuous bed and bank. These features were determined
to be non jurisdictional ephemeral drains and scored 7.5 and 13.25 out of a possible 71 points on the
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating non jurisdictional ephemeral status (SCP5 and SCP6).
Representative photographs of these non jurisdictional drains are enclosed as Photographs G and H.
4
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3. 27, and 33 CWS Project No. 2008-2223
Routine On-Site Data Forms representative non- jurisdictional upland areas have been enclosed (DP 1,
DP2, and DP6).
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June 9, 2008 to determine
the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be
affected by the project. In a response letter, dated July 21, 2008 (enclosed), the SHPO stated that they
"are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project."
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on June 9, 2008 to
determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical
habitat located within the project area. In a response letter, dated June 18, 2008 (enclosed), the
NCNHP stated that they have "no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area."
Purpose and Need for the Project
The main stem of McAlpine Creek between Sardis Road and Providence road is deeply incised, and
has been dredged and straightened in the past. It has characteristics of an `improved' storm drainage
channel, particularly in the upper part of the stream near Sardis Road. This portion of the mainstem
has virtually no sinuosity, pattern or definable pools and all riffles are heavily embedded with sand
and silt. Banks average 90 degrees or more and are mostly denuded. About halfway between Sardis
and Providence Roads (proposed stream station 32+00) the stream does meander slightly and
steepens, which has exposed some bedrock. The quality of the riffle substrate, riffle/pool patterns, etc.
are still poor along this reach but superior to the upstream portion.
The purpose of this project is to conduct stream restoration and enhancement on McAlpine Creek and
two unnamed tributaries to McAlpine Creek (SR2 and SR3) which are also in degraded condition.
The primary goals of this stream restoration are: (1) to improve water quality by reducing total
suspended solids (TSS) and nutrient loading; and (2) lessen structural flooding downstream by
creating more geomorphologically stable channels throughout the project area while improving and
restoring their hydrologic connection to their floodplains. In addition, the project will restore aquatic
and terrestrial habitat and enhance recreational and educational opportunities as well as provide flood
water storage and create mitigation credits. Wetland construction will also be conducted on the
floodplain of McAlpine Creek with the purpose of improving water quality. Temporary impacts to
on-site jurisdictional waters are necessary to alleviate channel erosion and enhance aquatic habitat.
Pond FF will be retrofitted as a multi-cell storm water treatment wetland. In addition to providing
improved storm water treatment this will result in improved habitat diversity and quality.
A greenway trail adjacent to McAlpine Creek is planned for the future. Construction of this greenway
trail is dependent on the completion of the McAlpine Creek relief sewer. Construction is not
anticipated for the next two years. Therefore any necessary permits will be applied for at that time.
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3. 27, and 33 CWS Project No. 2008-2223
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
Restoration work will result in an improvement in stream stability and ecological function. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All
channel work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification No. 3689.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts to Important Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A total approximately 395 linear
feet and are the result of a Priority 1 Stream Restoration. Intermittent Stream A will be relocated to a
new geomorphically stable channel as shown in Plan Sheet SR34 (attached). The proposed new stream
channel is approximately 370 linear feet in length, resulting in a net loss of 25 linear feet of intermittent
stream channel. The proposed new stream channel will result in significant improvements in the quality
of Intermittent Stream A. The existing channel is a deeply incised Rosgen type `G' channel that is
experiencing moderate to severe erosion. The proposed new channel will exhibit improved floodplain
access and improved sinuosity. In-stream structures and constructed riffles will increase stream habitat
diversity and improve channel stability, resulting in a high level of functional lift throughout the reach.
A plan view, longitudinal profile, and typical cross-sections of the proposed new channel are shown on
Plan Sheet SR34 (attached).
Unavoidable impacts to Perennial RPW Stream B total approximately 2,060 linear feet and are the result
of stream restoration. A new geomorphically stable channel is proposed for Perennial Stream B. The
proposed new stream channel is approximately 2,235 linear feet in length, resulting in a net gain of 175
linear feet of perennial stream channel (Plan Sheets SR2-5 and SR2-6, attached). The proposed new
stream channel will result in significant improvements in the stability and ecological function of
Perennial Stream B. The proposed new channel exhibits improved channel dimension, pattern, and
profile. Habitat enhancement will be based on profile and dimension changes to improve pool depth,
riffle/pool ratio and reduce riffle embeddedness. Root wads and wood J-hooks are meant to introduce
large woody debris (I") permanently in this stream. In-stream structures and constructed riffles will
increase stream habitat diversity and improve channel stability, resulting in a high level of functional lift
throughout the reach. Plan views, longitudinal profiles, and typical cross-sections of the proposed new
channel are shown on Plan Sheets SR2-1 to SR2-7 (attached).
Unavoidable impacts to Perennial RPW Stream C (McAlpine Creek) total approximately 5,148 linear
feet and are the result of stream restoration. A new geomorphically stable channel is proposed for
Perennial Stream A. The proposed new stream channel is approximately 5,322 linear feet in length,
resulting in a net gain of 174 linear feet of perennial stream channel (Plan Sheets MS-1 to MS-10,
attached). The proposed new stream channel will result in significant improvements in the stability and
ecological function of Perennial Stream C (McAlpine Creek). The proposed new channel will exhibit
improved channel dimension and profile. Habitat enhancement on McAlpine Creek will be through the
use of sills installed to increase scour holes and pool areas (as is the case under current conditions
where tree stumps exists at the toe of slope). These sills will also promote inner berm bar growth and
riffle creation. Live stakes and other vegetative installations at the toe of slope will also trap floatable
vegetative material, particularly leaves which will provide better benthic feeding sources. Plan views,
longitudinal profiles, and typical cross-sections of the proposed new channel are shown on Plan Sheets
MS-1 to MS-17 (attached).
The conversion of Pond FF to a multi-cell wetland will result in no net loss of jurisdictional area.
Approximately 1.56 acres of low quality open water will be temporarily impacted. There is an
unavoidable impact of 0.007 acre to Wetland CC. This impact is the result of the installation of a new
6
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3. 27, and 33 CWS Project No 2008-2223
rip-rap lined plunge pool at the pond outlet. Proposed impacts to Pond FF and Wetland CC are shown on
plan sheets SW4-1 to SW4-3 (attached)
Table 2. Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdiction Impact Proposed
Jurisdictional
Feature USACE/EPA
Intermittent/
Impact Type
NWP
Len
gth/ Proposed
New Channel Channel
ltapanos
Perennial No. Area
Length On Station
Classification (lVacres) Numbers
Stream A Seasonal RPW Important Priority 1 27 395 if 3701f 00+00 to
(SR3) Intermittent Restoration 03+70
3001f 00+00 to
Priority 2 03+00
27 2901f
Restoration 00+00 to
Stream B
Perennial RPW
Perennial 1751f
F
01+75
(SR2) Priori 2
03+00 to
Restora ion 27 4451f 4601f 07+60
Priority 1 27 1
3251f 1
4751f 07+60 to
Restoration , , 22+35
Stream C
(McAlpine
Creek - Mai Perennial RPW Perennial Priority 3 27 5,148 if 5,322 If 00+00 to
n Restoration 53+22
Stem)
Wetland CC N/A N/A Rip-Rap 3 0.007 acre N/A N/A
Pond FF N/A N/A Enhancement 3 1.56 acre N/A N/A
On behalf of LUESA, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application with attachments
in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 27 and pursuant to Nationwide Permit
(NWP) Nos. 3, 27 and 33, (enclosed).
Compensatory Mitigation
Construction of this project will result in a net increase in aquatic resource functions and values, and a
net gain of 499 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel. LUESA is seeking mitigation credit for
this project to be included in the Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank. Proposed
mitigation credit yields for this project are set out in detail in the Site Specific Mitigation Plan which
will be provided to the Mitigation Banking Review Team.
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3. 27, and 33 CWS Project No 2008-2223
Please do not hesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at 704-527-1177 or [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
Sincerely,
j&W
mas J. Blackwell
Project Scientist
C. --
Gregg . Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Charlotte East and Weddington, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 27, and 33
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCPI - SCP6)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCPI - SCP4)
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI - DP7)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms
Representative Photographs (A - H)
Agency Correspondence
McAlpine Environmental Restoration Project - 90% Design Plans
McAlpine Creek - Sardis Road to Providence Road -Site Specific Mitigation Plan
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Cantrell, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration Project July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 27, and 33 CWS Project Nos. 2008-2223
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series. Charlotte East and Weddington Quadrangles. Notch Carolhil,
Dated 1991 and 1999 RespectiN ely.
Approximate Scale F = 2000
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration Project July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 27, and 33 CWS Project Nos 2008-2223
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS
NRCS soil Sun ey of Mecklenburg Count. North Carolina. Sheet Nos. 7 and 12. Dated 1976.
Approximate Scale F = 2000'
.' c
a
0
0(D
00
Z U)

a
N
d
m
co
'C N
(U
> O
a v
? U
U)
c E
c m 4-
m
a)
d CO to

M a
c a
O ns m N
00
cn v a d N Z c
a) a a) m w LL o
' } }-1 o ? •- Z' a
1 J/?? J ?S a _? O .c o
c
U 0) N U)
), .?_4 i 1, c fA `? 'C c U C (D m cm
(p U) a N c r m x a N
` °
'Fu m (n M
IS2U3AO(I ' V c c cu r:+ a) o o 0
0 0 CL -C ?_ Q rn U o ?Z o ?Ci? W
J _?
N Y
O 'c c to 0) N 0. a) m 2 C v c
_0 a) -0 cu m z
p O C2 N = L LI ul o O Z
0 cu
H (n O C)
- C d 0 co
x w
c? c Z c?i
Lo 0 ti
g ( / (, Lf) L > C
o. ¦' U W °a
J ?? p E ?j .`0c
o c v v o
\ _ ', J' z g Q Q
21
(1 C
fl?
/„rlrii/%%uU. .(1 w\
,•

w Or
'
??
j/ o
J ?
i?il N c
o
U)
- PROVIDENCE -
<
44- c a a
o
o

If

W*
W
L1. CA \-.r
- O
(A C6
U) N
g?
L )o
Z<ui
QOQ
O
Z
W i
?oo?-
WO}
Wry
?coLij
W O
W
N >
LO
W 0 W
Z
U- -Z
0cn W w \
>
wU
>=
¢w?
J . IA
ZZ~
0 ui
LLI J
D Q Z ,
J O
ly 0
I-U? ;
O
Z00? -
7=u
4- 1
N
m
LL
° .
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: July 16, 2009
COUNTY Mecklenburg County North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 55 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration Project
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency (LUESA)
POC• Mr. Jimmy Gordon at [phone]
700 North Trvon Street
Charlotte North Carolina 28202
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS, at [phone]
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte North Carolina 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X ) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: restoration, enhancement, and maintenance )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following fast two items must be
forwarded.
(X) USGS 7.5' Charlotte East and Weddington, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X) NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X) Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
(X) Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 27, and 33
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCPI - SCP6)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1- SCP4)
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Detennination Form (SCP 1 - SCP4)
(X) USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DP I - DP7)
(X) Representative Photographs (A - H)
(X) Agency Correspondence
(X) McAlpine Environmental Restoration Project - 90% Design Plans
(X) Site Specific Mitigation Plan
C --
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Authorized Agent
Mr. Gregg C. Antemann
D5 -1 0-1 v ?
O?O? W AT?9QG
P 'C
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.0 November 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form

A. At4
Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the

Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3, 27, and 33 or General Permit (GP) number: Water Quality
Certification Nos. 3687, 3689, 3688
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. 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: McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name on Recorded Deed: N/A
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: N/A
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC, 28270
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
Section A. Applicant Information, continued
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Mecklenburg County
4b. Name: Mr. Jimmy Gordon
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Service Agency (LUESA)
4d. Street address: 700 North Tryon Street
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina, 28202
4f. Telephone no.: 704-336-3871
4g. Fax no.: 704-336-6586
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Mr. Gregg C. Antemann, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5c. Street address: 550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina, 28273
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.: [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A (multiple)
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.13230`N - 80.77371'W
1 c. Property size: 55 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to McAlpine Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Class C
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The current land use for the project area is wooded with adjacent residential areas with mowed lawns.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
2.38 acres (wetland) and 1.56 acres (Pond) = 3.94 acres total
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
8,504
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to conduct stream restoration and enhancement on McAlpine Creek and two unnamed
tributaries to McAlpine Creek (Stream A and Stream B) which are also in degraded condition. The primary goals of this
stream restoration are (1) to improve water quality by reducing total suspended solids (TSS) and nutrient loading and (2)
lessen structural flooding downstream by creating more geomorphologically stable channels throughout the project area
while improving and restoring their hydrologic connection to their floodplains. In addition, the project will restore aquatic
and terrestrial habitat and enhance recreational and educational opportunities as well as provide flood water storage and
create mitigation credit. Wetland construction will also be conducted on the floodplain of McAlpine Creek with the
purpose of improving water quality. Temporary impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters are necessary to alleviate channel
erosion and enhance aquatic habitat.
Pond FF will be retrofitted as a multi-cell storm water treatment wetland. In addition to providing improved storm water
treatment this will result in improved habitat diversity and quality.
A greenway trail adjacent to McAlpine Creek is planned for the future. Construction of this greenway trail is a separate
project, and is dependent on the completion of the McAlpine Creek relief sewer. Construction is not anticipated for the
next two years. Therefore any necessary permits will be applied for at that time.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
McAlpine Creek and the two unnamed tributaries to McAlpine Creek (Stream A and Stream B) will relocated to new
geomorphically stable channels. The channels will have improved channel dimensions and profiles and will exibit
improved floodplain access and sinuosity. The new channels will have in-stream structures and constructed riffles to
increase stream habitat diversity and improve channel stability. Vernal pools will be created within the McAlpine Creek
flood plain. Pond FF will be retrofitted as a multi-cell storm water treatment wetland. A trackhoe and other standard
construction equipment will be used for this project.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
? Yes ® No ? Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
? Preliminary ? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): N/A Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
N/A
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No
? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
® Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or impact (if known) DWQ - non-404, other)
Temporary T
W1 ® P ? T Rip-Rap Forested ® Yes ? No ® Corps
? DWQ 0.007
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No Corps
? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.007
2h. Comments: Impacts are to Wetland CC
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f.
Stream impact Type of Stream name Perennial (PER) or Average stream width (feet) Impact
number - impact intermittent (INT)? length
Permanent (P) or (linear feet)
Temporary (T)
Priority 1 Important
S1 ®P ? T Restorat- Intermittent
Seasonal RPW ? PER ® INT 9 395
ion Stream A

S2 ® P ? T Priority 2
Restorat- Perennial RPW
® PER ? INT
4.5
735
ion Stream B

S3 ® P ? T Priority 1
Restorat- Perennial RPW
Stream B
® PER ? INT
4.5
1,325
ion
Priority 3 Perennial RPW
S4 ® P ? T Restorat- Steam C ® PER ? INT 22.5 5,148
ion (McAlpine Creek)
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
3g. Total stream and tributary impacts 7,603
3h. Comments:
Page 5of13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all o en water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water
impact number Name of
waterbody
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
- Permanent (if
(P) or applicable)
Temporary T
01 ®P ? T Pond FF Maintenance Pond 1.56
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts 1.56
4g. Comments:
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction pro osed, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number purpose of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
Project is in which protected basin? ? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
? Catawba ? Randleman
6b.
Buffer impact
number -
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
T 6c.

Reason
for impact 6d.

Stream name 6e.

Buffer
mitigation
required? 6f.

Zone 1 impact (square
feet) 6g.

Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
B1 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No
B3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Restoration
work will result in an improvement in stream stability and ecological function.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All
construction activities will be conducted in the dry.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

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

pro
project? ? Mitigation bank

El Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm, cool, cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h.. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation, continued
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
Total buffer mitigation required:
6c. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6d. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan

1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? ? Yes ® No
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? ? Yes ? No
2. Determination if the Project Requires a Stormwater Management Plan

2a. Does the project require a Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit? ? Yes ® No
2b. Is the project subject to General Certification 3704 or 3705? ? Yes ® No
3. Determination of Stormwater Review Jurisdiction

3a. Is this project subject to any of the following state-implemented stormwater
management programs (check all that apply)?

If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the DWQ and one copy of the ? Coastal counties
? HQW
? ORW
? Session Law 2006-246
approved stormwater management plan. ? Other:
3b. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? City of Charlotte
3c. Is this local government certified to implement a state stormwater program? ® Yes ? No
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the local government and one copy
of the approved stormwater management plan (or one copy of the approved
Stormwater management plan stamped as approved).
4. Information Required for DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review

4a. What is the overall percent imperviousness according to the most current site plan? `24% - No change in impervious
percent
4b. Does this project contain any areas that meet the criteria for "high density" per
General Certifications 3704 and 3705? ? Yes ® No
4c. If the site is over 24% impervious and/or contains high density areas, then provide a brief narrative description of the
stormwater management plan.
4d. Has a completed BMP Supplement Form with all required items been submitted
for each stormwater BMP? ? Yes ® No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? 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.
This project will not cause any additional development which will impact downstream water quality.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form -Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
h
bit
t?
? Yes N
a
a o
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
? Y
impacts? es No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted ? Raleigh
. ? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on June 9, 2008 to determine the
presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area. In a response letter, dated June 18, 2008 (enclosed), the NCNHP stated that they have "no record of rare species
,
significant natural communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within 1
mile of the project area."
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
? Yes No
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June 9, 2008 to determine the presence of
any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. In a response
letter, dated July 21, 2008 (enclosed), the SHPO stated that they "are aware of no historic resou
th
t
e
rces
a
would b
affected by the project."
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: This project has been hydrologically modelled and designed to
result in no net rise in flood level. The project engineer is coordinating with the local floodplain administrator.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Map No. 37119C0228E and
37119C0248E

Mr. Jimmy Gordon, PE
Project Manager '
?^
6/18/09

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applic /t/Agent's Signature
(Agent's sigi ature is valid my if an authorization letter from the applicant
Date
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
I I is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification. Form; Version 3.1
Date, 08/1412008 Project: McAlpine Creek Greenway Latitude: N35.132300
Evaluator mAT & .iCM site: SCP1 Longitude: $0.773710
Total Points: Other Intermittent RPW Stream A
Stream Is at least intermitte'=.28.00 County: e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ l2or erennlallf? 30 Mecklenburg
Geomar hob (Subtotal = 1 )
A Absent lf4i- k Moderate Strong
.
Continuous bed and bank 3.0
1° 1 2 3
.
2.0
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2 3
-
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2.0 0 1 2

Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0
4 0

-- - 1

--- 2 3
.
Activeirelic floodplain 1.0
5 0 1 2 3
.
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3
Braided channel 0.0
7 0 1 2 3
.
Recent alluvial deposits 3.0
8 0 1 2 3
.
9` Natural levees 0.0
. _ 0 1 2 3
_._..... _..
10. Headcuts 0.0
0
1
_.......

1 3

.._
---........
1
5
11. Grade controls 0.5 0 0.5 1 .
1
5
12. Natural valley or drainage\vay 0.5 0 0.5 .
13. Second or greater order channel on existin Yes = 3
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0

a Man-made ditGttes are not rated: see discussions in manual
c r
0. n lUl VIV o- - - - v..,
14. Groundwaterflovddischarge
1.0
3
15. Water in channel and y 48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3
or growing season
Water in channel- dry 1.0
_
16. Leaflitter 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris l .0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines] 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
is t-lv{irirr snits fredoximorohic features} t?resent?1,5 No = 0 Yes= 1.5
_# _ c en
L?. flu llJl? wull L_- -- V.JV
20 F brows roots in channel 2.0
3 -..? .-
2 _._._...._..--
_.._ 1 ---
_.:..
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3
-- 2
22. Crayfish 0.5 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24, Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 1.0 0 0.5 1 ,1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 _ 0 _ 1 2 3
28. iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1
70t 1AlatlnmA nlnntc in ctrp:]rnhPri 0-00 FAC = 65: FACW = 0.75; O6L = 1.5 $RV = 2.0; other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland planls.
Sketch:
Motes: (use bad; side of this form for additional notes.)
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Intermittent RPW Stream A
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET '
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Josh Frost and Jamie MacMartin
3. Date of Evaluation: 8/14/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to McAlpine Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 25 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 485 take the NC-51 N exit. Exit 64A
and merge onto NC-51/Pineville-Matthews Road. Travel approximately 5.9 miles and turn left onto Providence Road (NC-16).
Travel approximately 2.7 miles and turn right onto Sardis Lane Travel approximately 0.9 mile and turn right onto Sardis Road.
Travel approximately 0.6 mile and turn right onto Old Bell Road. Travel approximately 195 feet and the parking lot for the site is on
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.13230 ° W80.77371°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: Currently sprinkling
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast 75 °F
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 90 % Residential % Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
10 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
21. Bankfull Width: 8-10' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 37 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature G? G-,?? Date 8/14/08
This channel evaluation for is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data requireby the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1 - Intermittent RPW Stream A
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
C
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain S
ORE

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 1
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
>+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
E (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max oints
F

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
varied habitats = max points)
little or no habitat = 0; frequent

18 ,
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
>4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Cz? 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
a
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 37
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina [division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 48/12/2008 Project: McAlpine Creek Greenwa Latitude: N35.1320300
Evaluator:GCA Site: SCP2 Longitude: 80.773710
Total Points: Other. Perennial RPW Stream B
sfream is at feast intatmitteat , ?.?? County: e.g. Quad Name:
it? 19 or perennial if a 3t) Mecklenburg
A. Georrior hold (Sul)total = 19. Absent . Weak Moderate Strong
1°- Continuous bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2.0 _
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3.0 0 1 2
--......... 3
........
--
6. Activelrelicfloodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 0.4
0 -
-
2 --......
.._.
10. Headcuts 0.0 0
.. 1
._. ...... 2 3
-. _:.. _ _.. ...
11. Grade controls 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. hlatural valley or drainageway 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented No= O Yes = 3
evidence. 0.0
e Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
O Ll -41 nn?• lCe?hFn?al - 1fira 1
14. Groundwater flovddischarge 3.0 0 1 2 ____ 3
'15. Water in channel and > 48 his since rain. or
_ Water in channel -- dry or grovpang season 3.0
16. Leaflitte€ 1.5 0

1.5 .._. 1

1 2

0.5 3

0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0,5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes =1.5
C, Biology
. )
(Subtotal ..= 7.00
_
-
205. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0

2->ooted plants in ohannei
3.4
3
2 1
_.....
0
22. Crayfish 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 0 0.5 _ 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
295. Wetland plants in streatnbed _ 0.40 FAC = Q 5; FA CW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
It.ms 20 an d 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.

(dotes: (use back side of ibis form for additional notes.) Sketch:
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 - Perennial RPW Stream B
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Gregg Antemann
3. Date of Evaluation: 8/12/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to McAlpine Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 245 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 485 take the NC-51 N exit, Exit 64A
and merge onto NC-51/Pineville-Matthews Road. Travel approximately 5.9 miles and turn left onto Providence Road (NC-16).
Travel approximately 2.7 miles and turn right onto Sardis Lane. Travel approximately 0.9 mile and turn rigbt onto Sardis Road.
Travel approximately 0.6 mile and turn risht onto Old Bell Road. Travel approximately 195 feet and the parking lot for the site is on
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.13230 °, W80.77371°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain in past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 85 degrees, sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (& NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 1.1 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0? NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (a? NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 30 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
70 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 3-6' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-6'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) _K _Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight _X _Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 53 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature All C. Date 8/12/08
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 - Perennial RPW Stream B
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
5
0
0-4
0-5
4
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) -
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
Q+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition-- 0; little or no sediment = max points)

l l Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0-4

0-5

2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
>+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
l3 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
E„ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
E (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
et 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
F varied habitats = max points)
little or no habitat = 0; frequent

18 ,
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
>+ no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
a
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 53
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 0811212008 Project: McAlpine Creek Greenway Latitude: N35.132300
EvaIuator.GCA Site: SCP3 Longitude: W80.773710
Total Points' Other Perennial RPW Stream C
S[raam is at Least intermittent C 1 (ll1 County: ?eC?en?tlr e.g. Quad Nance:
it? 19 or erenniaf fi>_ 30 sLls?l?
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = 24.5 ) Absent eak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1.0 0 1 _...... 2 _._.._... -3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 310 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3,0 0 1 _.._..... __ 2 _...._..__..3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 3.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 3.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 3.0 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 _....._3
10. Headcuts 0,0 _ 0 _._.....1 2___._....._._ _...
11. Grade controls l.b 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or dnainagevvay 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0 Yes = 3
3.0
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
a,l - ii C
14. Groundwater floyddischarge 3.0 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
season 3
0
roNrin
dr
or
nel
h
t
i
W 0 1 2 3
g
g_
.
y
--
n c
an
a
er
16. L.eaflitter 1.5 -15 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hvdric soils fredoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes =1.5

20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 _ 2 1 0 ---
-5---...
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0
- -- 3 2 1 0
1.5
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 1.5 0 05 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 1.5 0 . _ 0.5 - - 1 1.5 ---
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 2.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
7q c Wi-tInnd olarrts in sireambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBI = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other T 0
Kerns 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or vwetiand plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use backside of this form for additional notes.)
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP3 - Perennial RPW Stream C
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
A
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Gregg Antemann
3. Date of Evaluation: 8/12/08
5. Name of Stream: McAlpine Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 25 sq miles
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 2001f
4. Time of Evaluation: 1.00 pm
6. River Basin: Catawba
8. Stream Order: Ninth
10. County: Mecklenburg,
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 485 take the NC-51 N exit, Exit 64A
and merge onto NC 51/Pineville Mattbews Road Travel approximately 5.9 miles and turn left onto Providence Road (NC-16).
Travel Mproximately 2.7 miles and turn right onto Sardis Lane Travel approximately 0.9 mile and turn right onto Sardis Road.
Travel approximately 0.6 mile and turn right onto Old Bell Road Travel approximately 195 feet and the parking lot for the site is on
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.13230 ° W80.77371°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain in past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 85 degrees sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters - Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (& NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 12 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0!9) NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (ii) NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 30 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
70 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 15-30' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 10-20'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X _Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Ar? e' A Date 8/12/08
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP3 - Perennial RPW Stream C

#
C
C ECOREGION POINT RANGE
HARA
TERISTICS
` SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 4
y, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
F?+ 7 Entrenchment/ floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 0
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 4
(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)
N
13 Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pooltripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
>+ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
(,'
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4
3
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 61
i nese cnaractenstncs are not assessed m coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 08114/2048 Project: McAlpine Creek Creenwa Latitud" 1+135.132300
Evaluator: jWF & JCM Site: SCP4 Longitude; W80,773710
Total Points: Other Perennial RPW Stream D
Stream is at least intermittent 4000 [ounty:
Mec?
enbtur e.g. Quad Name:
#2: 19 or perennial if>_ 30
Geomorphology (Subtotal = Z0.5 l
A Absent Weak J Moderate Strong
.
1°. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3
3
2- Sinuosity 2.0 2
2 --
3. In-channel structure: rife-pool sequence 2.0
.......
-°- -
---

3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2,0
0 --- -- -
5. Activelrelic floodplain 1.0 0 1 2
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches 3.0 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 3.0 0 1 2
2 3
9 E Natural levees 0.0 0 1
1
10. Headcuts --
_.._ 0.0 0
0
5 1
0
11. Grade controls 0.5 0 - .
5 1
0 1.5
12. Natural valley ordrainagew-ay 1.0 .
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
= 0
N Yes J 3
USGS or NRGS map or other documented o
evidence. 3.0 . .....
_
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
?n r
0, l i UFUI Q OuukvwI - iv..,
14. Groundwater floWdischarge 2.0 2 ?
?-
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
son 3
0
i 0 1 2 3
.
ing sea
Water in channel -- dry or groU
16. Leaffitter - 1.0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.5
18, Organic debris lines or piles (Wracklines) 1,5
19. Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 1.5
0
0
No 1
0.5
0.5
= 0 0.5
1
1
Yes 0
1'5
1.5
= 1.5
C, Biology Subtotal = `LUU l --- - -
20t'. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 --- -
--
-- --
21'. Rooted plants in channel

3.0
3
2
1

5
22. Crayfish 1.0 0 0,5 1 3
23. Bivalves 0.0 0
0 1
0
5 2
1 1.5
24. Fish 0.5
"0 0 .
0,5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians _
---
26. Maerobentho9 {note diversity and abundance)
0.5
_ _ 0
0.5
1

Filamentous algae; periphyton
27
0.0
0 1 2
-
.
--
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. _
29 r. Wetland plants in streainbed _._

D.0
0.00
0

FAC 0.5;
0.5

FACW ° 0.75; OBL = 1.5
1 1 ..

SAV = 2A; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. It em 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form ,or additional naves .)
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP4 - Perennial RPW Stream D
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ''
L Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Josh Frost and Jamie MacMartin
3. Date of Evaluation: 8/14/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to McAlpine Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 417 acres 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 485 take the NC-51 N exit, Exit 64A
and merge onto NC-51/Pineville-Matthews Road. Travel approximately 5.9 miles and turn left onto Providence Road (NC-16):
Travel approximately 2.7 miles and turn right onto Sardis Lane. Travel approximately 0.9 mile and turn right onto Sardis Road.
Travel approximately 0.6 mile and turn right onto Old Bell Road. Travel approximately 195 feet and the parking lot for the site is on
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.13230 °, W80.77371°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any
14. Recent Weather Conditions: Currently sprinkling
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast, 75 °F
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (a NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 1.7 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (9 NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (@ NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 90 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
10 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 15-20' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5-6'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 50 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 8/14/08
This channel evaluation for is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data require by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP4 - Perennial RPW Stream D
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
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
3
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
>+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
0-4
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
* severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
H (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

I S Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
,20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
>0 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
1.4 O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
P- no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 50
* 1 hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water (,duality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 05/21/2008 Project: McAlpine Creek Creenway Latitude: N35.1320300
Evaluator:PAB & GCA Site: SCP5 Longitude: W80.773710
Total Points: Other Nan-JD
Sbram is at least intermittent County:
it? 19 or erennial if a 30 7.50 Mecklenbur e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holy Subtotal =___2.5 } Absent m :. Weak Moderate Strong
1°. Continuous bed and bank 2.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial' deposits 0.0 0 1 2 3
9" Natural levees 0.0
.
.
._. .__..._......
.
.
--- 0 1 2 3

---
--_....... _.......... _..
.. .... ..
. ..•
..
.
10. Headcuts 0.0
0
1
2 -
3
11. Grade oantrofs 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagervay 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 2.0 )
14. Groundwater flo4discharge 0,0 0 1 2
_
_...
..... -- 3
15. Water in channel and a 48 hrs since rain: or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0.0 0 ---._...._.
1 .
.
.
2 3
18. Leafl her 0.0 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.S 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soifs {redoximorphlc features) present?0,p No = 0 Yes =1.5
C. Biolocav (Subtotal= 3.00 l
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2,0 3 2 1 0
21D. Rooted plants in channel i.0 3 2 1
_ 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 ...--- -
----....1 1-5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
28. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0,0 0 0.5 1 1.5

27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0
0
1
2....•. .... .. -
-
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; CBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- items 2u and 21 rocus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence or aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP5 - Non-JD
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET '
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Paul Bright and Gregg Antemann
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/21/08
5. Name of Stream: UT to McAlpine Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 5 acres
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 ft
4. Time of Evaluation: 11:00 am
6. River Basin: Catawba
8. Stream Order: First
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 485 take the NC-51 N exit, Exit 64A
and merge onto NC-51/Pineville-Matthews Road Travel approximately 5.9 miles and turn left onto Providence Road (NC-16).
Travel approximately 2.7 miles and turn right onto Sardis Lane Travel approximately 0.9 mile and turn right onto Sardis Road.
Travel proximately 0.6 mile and turn right onto Old Bell Road Travel approximately 195 feet and the narking lot for the site is on
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.13230 ° W80.77371°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain in past 24 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 85 degrees, sunn
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 30 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
70 % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
21. Bankfull Width: 2-6' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-6'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) _X -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 34 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature C_ Date 5/21/08
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP5 - Non-JD
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# '
CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

i Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
0
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
0 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 0
y, no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Fri 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
(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)

l3 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
H no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

l 5 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 0
C-+ (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
d 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
18 (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 34
1 nese charactenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: McAlpine Creek Greenway Date: 05/21/08
Applicant/Owner: CSWS County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): PAB & GCA State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DPI
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1 Acer negundo tree Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Ilex opaca tree FAC 10
3 Juncus effusus vine FAC 11
4 Carex lurida herb OBL 12
5 Toxicodendron radicans vine FAC 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant plant s
pecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
% Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
% Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) % Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Surrey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine Data Forms Page 1 of 2 4/30/2009
ef%H c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan loam. 0-2 percent sloae (MO) Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic Eutrude is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No

Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3" A 2.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 Few/Distinct Silt loam
3-12" B 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 4/6 Many/Distinct Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hvdric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
I ji
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine Data Forms Page 2 of 2 4/30/2009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: McAlpine Creek Greenwa Date: 05/21/08
Applicant/Owner: CSWS County: Mecklenbur
Investigator(s): PAB & GCA State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes N Transect ID:
No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: DP2
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VFrFTATIn1J
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1 Acer negundo tree Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Ilex opaca tree FAC 10
3 Juncus effusus vine FAC 11
4 Carex lurida herb OBL 12
5 Toxicodendron radicans vine FAC 13
6 14
7 15
B 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant plant s
pecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
% Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine Data Forms - DP2 Page 1 of 2 4/30/2009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan loam. 0-2 percent slope (MO) Drainage Class somewhat roomy drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic Eutrude is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3" A 2.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 Few/Distinct Silt loam
3-12" B 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 4/6 Many/Distinct Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine Data Forms - DP2 Page 2 of 2 4/30/2009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: McAlpine Creek Greenway Date: 05/21/08
Applicant/Owner: CSWS County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): PAB & GCA State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: AA&BB
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP3
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica tree Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Acer negundo tree FACW 10
3 Acer rubrum tree FAC 11
4 Carex lurida herb OBL 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant plant s
pecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-4 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) X Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine Data Forms - DP3 Page I Of 2 4130/2009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan loam. 0-2 percent slope (MO) Drainage Class sommhat noody drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic Eutrude is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6" A 10YR 5/1 7.5YR 5/6 Few/Distinct Silt loam
6-12" B 10YR 6/1 7.5YR 5/6 Many/Distinct Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
% Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No
(Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Ye No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
1 11
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Routine Data Forms - DP3 Page 2 of 2 4/30/2009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: McAlpine Creek Greenwa Date: 04/29/09
Applicant/Owner: CSWS County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): TJB & JCM State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: DD
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP4
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VFr.FTOTinm
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica tree Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Acer negundo tree FACW 10
3 Acer rubrum tree FAC 11
4 Ulmus rubra tree FAC 12
5 Acer rubrum sapling FAC 13
6 Acer negundo sapling FACW 14
7 Carex lurida herb OBL 15
8 Carex crinita herb FACW+ 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant plant s
pecies are FAC or wetter.
14YnRAI A(.Y
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
% Inundated
% Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
% Water Marks
% Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
% Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-12 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) % Water-Stained Leaves
Loral Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrolomy are present.
Routine Data Forms - DP5 Page I of 2 4/30/2009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan loam, 0-2 percent slope (MO) Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic Eutrude g Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 A 5Y 5/2 5Y 5/8 Few/Prominent Silty Clay Loam
6-14 Bl 5YR 5/8 2.5Y 6/3 Many/Prominent Clay
14-18+ B2 5YR 4/6 2.5Y 6/3 Many/Prominent Clay
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
% Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine Data Forms - DP5 Page 2 of 2 4/30/2009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: McAlpine Creek Greenwa Date: 05/21/08
Applicant/Owner: CSWS County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): CRW, PAB & GCA State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: cc
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DPS
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
vGr_GTATinM
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica tree Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Acer negundo tree FACW 10
3 Toxicodendron radicans vine FAC 11
4 Carex lurida herb OBL 12
5 Peltandra virginica herb OBL 13
6 14
7 15
g 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant plant s
pecies are FAC or wetter.
uvnani nr_v
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) X Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0" (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland h dy rology are present.
Routine Data Forms - DP5 Page 1 of 2 4/30/2009
cnll c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan loam, 0-2 aercent sloae (MO) Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic Eutrude is Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4" A 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 Many/Distinct Silt loam
4-12" B 10YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 Many/Distinct Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Routine Data Forms - DP5 Page 2 of 2 4/30/2009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: McAlpine Creek Greenway Date: 05/21/08
Applicant/Owner: CSWS County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): PAB & GCA State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP6
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1 Frazinus pennsylvanica tree Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 L lmus rubra tree FAC 10
3 Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC 11
4 Peltandra virginica herb OBL 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant plant s
pecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) X Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0" (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine Data Forms Page 1 of 2 4/30/2009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan loam, 0-2 percent slope (MO) Drainage Class Somewhat Poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluvag uentic Eutrudents Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6" A 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 Many/Distinct Silt loam
6-18" B 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 4/6 Many/Distinct Silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No
(Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Routine Data Forms Page 2 of 2 4/30/2009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: McAlpine Creek Greenway Date: 04/29/09
Applicant/Owner: CSWS County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): TJB & JCM State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No CommunityID: wetlan
ds the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: EE
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP7
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VF(.FTATIAN
Dominant Plant Species
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Stratum
tree Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9 Commelina communis herb FAC
2 Acer negundo tree FACW 10 Toxicodenron radicans vine FAC
3 Liquidambar styracii lua tree FAC+ 11
4 Ulmus rubra tree FAC 12
5 Acer negundo sapling FACW 13
6 Liquidambar styracii lua sapling FAC+ 14
7 Carex lurida herb OBL 15
8 Carex crinita herb FACW+ 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant plant s
pecies are FAC or wetter.
i4vnRnl nr.v
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Field Observations: % Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 9 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 14 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine Data Forms - DP5 Page 1 of 2 4/3012009
c.r.u h
.ww v
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan loam. 0-2 percent slope (MO) Drainage Class Somewhat noodv drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluvag uentic EutrudeptS Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 5/3 2.5YR 4/8 Many/Prominent Silty Clay Loam
6-18 Bl 5YR 5/8 10YR 6/3 Many/Prominent Clay
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
wG71 AKIn nFTGRMINeTInfJ
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area. The area does not have hyd
ric soils but it is dominated by wetland vegetation.
L
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine Data Forms - DP5 Page 2 of 2 4/30/2009
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM S
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 19, 2009
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: McApline Creek Environmental Restoration Project, Charlotte,
NC - Important Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. N35.13230° N, Long. W80.77371 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: McAlpine Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: McAlpine Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 19, 2009
® Field Determination. Date(s): May 21, 2008 / August 12, 2008 / August 14, 2008
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 395 linear feet: 8-10width (ft) and/or 0.08 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):;
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
XMap® 4.0
!Ghemway.•.
i

Junker
'.^ Atao Junction 2939 p
K
,.. xx
16 2014

'
k? ---? ?
Grove Park
¦

27 _ a
Hickory Grove
f
otte
'Chari

vvilg ve Air Park:
r 160 T
'
Wilgr
Project Watershed - 45 sq. mi. (approx.) 4 ¦Marlwoo, Ares.
•
_
_ HU Code - 03050103020050 r - { f
s ?
t

Rama 3155
t

T _

r

,
3135

- - ? 51

3474 : 3175:
16
_ e
$
¦Sharonbrook ?Olde Providence Matth
ws 3176
¦ 3179
3455 3177 ,
"
=Sterling,-, 1524
.

v
Tucka Way Park -
,
¦ L , _ 3457,-

1559
559
_
- Y
;
51 3448 ` 1401
1366 -
Plnev lie
. x

- 1416 -
3649 -
,
•
. ' _ 1569 ;.
_ >
_
• _ ?
? .r
-
Providence 1391
.
-' 1362
1410 r ;
'
1452
j? 21 - 3780 3445
1345 _ 1441
.
' [64 F
,. s
364 1

1359
57
3628 - 1445
3630
I. 514 1458 1447 ; 1354 -
WF 1317 1344 ' - •- _ =
16 _2
`• 1343 1355
~
y
84
3634 1364
42 3633
x• 1342
1346
,
.
ti 336 1348
r
1313
('
-
J
1340 1338'
1337
?t .f`
1312 -r '
253 . %
Scale 1 : 126.720
® 2003 DeLorme. XMap®. o z 3
""ss•un o z a . www.delorne.com
1" = 2.00 mi Data Zoom 10 6
XMap® 4.0
,J VA
s
51
Ale.mdp
f •.
t •? o f ; '1 r fi kWM rnermittent Seasonal RPW Stew A
?dp$la > ? - >:? Drainage Area - 25 acres tawexy
ry
'(? , ,S. ---'''t,? ;,,- . ?? ? tip,„' " i ? €? ? ` Y t+?$ a `-?`° ? r
e
N,„ i
i i
z ?iR ti t• . i r '. r 1' 0 ? ?' ?.,• ?`:.??
•* f? * ? ?r'???? „?? - ,QOM $? y? 1 .y':. ? s? !?/ .? ?J ???
]\f 2 i
%
17
y ; rat ? f ?? ? ? f- y?.?• •,, ? 1 SS : - {? ({,l ?` ? 1. tel.
?i. , r-?? ??? r f f.. ; t t • .T i ` I C. .? f. '? ,ado Z+`'r ? ?? ? / .'_
? „• ? . Y \ ( `?, tit r./'?--?„f is
Al-
TN SralP 1 • S)d nnn
_ ____ ____...._. ,....•.r?. ? n ero xm eoo x•oo 3000
www.delortne.com NN (6.8-M
m
? u zoo .m 6m em o00
1" = 2,000.0 ft Data Zoom 13-1
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section HI.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HI.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section HI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbodya is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 45 acres
Drainage area: 25 acres
Average annual rainfall: 42 inches
Average annual snowfall: 5 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
® Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) 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: N/A.
Identify flow route to TNW5: Important Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A flows directly to McAlpine Creek (TNW).
Tributary stream order, if known: 1st.
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Top of stream has been piped.
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 4.5 feet
Average depth: 9 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
® Cobbles ® Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: This is relatively unstable urbanized
stream system. Flow is flashy due to a high level of impervious cover in the waterershed. Stream is incised, with steep, unstable banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Riffle pool complexes exist but are weak and inconsistent.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: Discreete and confined.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and 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
® changes in the character of soil
® shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
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: watershed has a high level of urbanization. Single and multi-family residential properties are the predominant
land use, with some commercial properties present high in the watershed.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
71bid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): There is a very narrow riparian corridor behind which are
maintained lawns.
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the now
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN Ws, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TN W?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section HI.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERSIWETLANDS 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:
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: Stream A is approximately 395 linear feet in length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream A was evaluated to be an
important intermittent stream and exhibited a strong bed and banks, average ordinary high water widths of 5-10 feet, weak to
moderate flow during drought conditions, and substrate consisting of silt, coarse sand, gravel and cobbles. Biological
sampling within this portion of Stream A resulted in a weak presence of amphibians. Due to the evidence of flow for at least
three consecutive months a year, this portion of Stream A was classified as a Seasonal Relatively Permanent Water (RPW)
according to USACE/EPA guidance. Important Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A scored 37 out of a possible 100 points
on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 28 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP1, enclosed).
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 395 linear feet8-10width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.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-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):Io
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'0 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
? 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:
? Wetlands: acres.
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 "STFANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Q Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:USGS 7.5' Charlotte East & Weddington, NC Topographic
Quadrangle,dated 1991 and 1998 respectively.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
Sheet No. 7 and 12, dated 1976.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
Pf I-VAV\ jal RPW Skr_o m 6
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 19, 2009
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Ashville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration Project, Charlotte,
NC - Perennial RPW Stream B
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.13230° N, Long. 80.77371 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: McAlpine Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: McAlpine Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 19, 2009
® Field Determination. Date(s): May 21, 2008 / August 12, 2008 / August 14, 2008
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "imvigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
Q TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 2,1951inear feet: 3-6width (ft) and/or 0.23 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 HI.B.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HI.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HI.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands
? Cobbles ? Gravel
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
? Concrete
? Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence ofrun/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation linesichanges in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: herbaceous.
Wetland quality. Explain: natural wetland, no disturbances.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain: wetland is adjacent to a perennial stream.
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics: weak surface flow.
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: N/A.
? 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 berni/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): .
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: .
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres,)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN Ws, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
D TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
E] Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream B is approximately 2,195 linear feet in length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream B was evaluated to
be perennial and exhibited strong bed and banks, average ordinary high water widths of 3-6 feet, moderate flow during
drought conditions, and substrate consisting of silt, coarse sand, gravel and cobbles. Biological sampling within this portion
of Stream B resulted in a weak presence of crayfish and macrobenthic invertebrates. Due to the evidence of typical year round
flow, Stream B was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW) according to USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW
Stream B scored 53 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and scored 36.5 out of
71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP2, enclosed).
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: 2,195 linear feet3-6width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters!
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
'See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction 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:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® 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:Charlotte East and Weddington, North Carolina, 1991 and 1998
respectively.
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): See attached report.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
pGlr'eV wod 11?? APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM w?lr? S I?/T , F
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 19, 2009
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Ashville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration Project, Charlotte,
NC - Perennial RPW Stream C and Wetlands AA-EE
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.132301 N, Long. 80.77371 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: McAlpine Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: McAlpine Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 19, 2009
® Field Determination. Date(s): May 21, 2008 / August 12, 2008 / August 14, 2008
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or 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]
L Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 5,2681inear feet: 15-30width (ft) and/or 2.72 acres.
Wetlands: 2.38 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section HIT.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section M.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and
and Section HI.D.l.; otherwise, see Section HI.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° 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 HI.B.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HI.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWs:
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
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.
]y):
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that E ply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: herbaceous.
Wetland quality. Explain: natural wetland, no disturbances.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain: wetland is adjacent to a perennial stream.
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics: weak surface flow.
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: N/A.
? 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 bern/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximitv (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): .
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
Q TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream C (McAlpine Creek) is approximately 5,268 linear feet in length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream C
was evaluated to be perennial and exhibited a strong bed and bank, strong riffle-pool sequences, average ordinary high water
widths of 15-30 feet, strong flow during drought conditions, and substrate consisting of silt to medium gravel with a few larger
cobbles and boulders. Biological sampling within Stream C resulted in a strong presence of crayfish, fish, amphibians, and
macrobenthic invertebrates. Stream C also had a moderate presence of filamentous algae and iron oxidizing bacteria. Due to
the evidence of typical year round flow, Stream C was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW) according to
USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream C scored 61 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet and scored 51 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating
perennial status (SCP3, enclosed). .
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 5,268 linear feetl5-30width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWsa that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 2.38acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters .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-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):ro
"See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
? 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:
? 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 "S1VANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® 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:Charlotte East and Weddington, North Carolina, 1991 and 1998
respectively.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
® Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): See attached report.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
[] Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
PeccKvveO RN S beam D
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 19, 2009
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Ashville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration Project, Charlotte,
NC - Perennial RPW Stream D
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.13230° N, Long. 80.77371° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: McAlpine Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: McAlpine Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 19, 2009
® Field Determination. Date(s): May 21, 2008 / August 12, 2008 / August 14, 2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): i
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 6461inear feet: 15-20width (f4) and/or 0.26 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):;
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
'Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section MY.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section IH.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.l.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent'
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HI.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
`Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands
? Cobbles ? Gravel
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
? Concrete
? Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: herbaceous.
Wetland quality. Explain: natural wetland, no disturbances.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain: wetland is adjacent to a perennial stream.
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics: weak surface flow.
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: N/A.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by benn/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): .
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: .
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream D is approximately 646 linear feet in length (Figure 1, enclosed). Stream D was evaluated to be
perennial and exhibited strong bed and banks, average ordinary high water widths of 15-20 feet, moderate flow during drought
conditions, and substrate consisting of silt, coarse sand, gravel and cobbles. Biological sampling within this portion of Stream
D resulted in a moderate presence of crayfish and amphibians and a weak presence of fish and macrobenthic invertebrates.
Due to the evidence of typical year round flow, Stream D was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW) according to
USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream D scored 50 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet and scored 40 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating
perennial status (SCP4, enclosed). A photograph of Perennial RPW Stream D is enclosed as Photograph B..
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 646 linear feet0.26width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U. S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction FoRowingRapanos.
? 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:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® 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:Charlotte East and Weddington, North Carolina, 1991 and 1998
respectively.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): See attached report.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 27, and 33 CWS Project No. 2008-2223
Photograph A. View of Important Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A, facing downstream.
Photograph B. View of Perennial RPW Stream D, facing upstream.
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 27, and 33 CWS Proiect No 2008-2223
------------
-

"W

.u r.
RM
? t ry _ t
-„q, q„ .+. ? ?.gW n 'tom dir,? ?; ". r
?,N.y Z lei +H ? $' wed' ?f J r' - _?' $o y?-e

a x F a

? •Y
^?,,
y e'.r y$ . , y
"
Ls yea
?
?
¢ ?
Y W l
w
?r? Yl . A
$ '.? A 4u
}"
Photograph C. View of Wetland AA at DP3, facing northeast.

3 ? f
,.+l'r
71

ISM,

s.
i
?.
r

Photograph D. View of Wetland CC at DP5, facing northeast.
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3 27, and 33 CWS Pro'ect No. 2008-2223
ruOwg,apn r. view of wetland LE at DP7, tacing northwest.
Fnotograph E. View of Wetland DD at DP4, facing northwest.
McAlpine Creek Environmental Restoration July 16, 2009
Nationwide Permit Nos. 3, 27, and 33 CWS Proicct No 2008-2223
.?a. SWp y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Usbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 21, 2008
Paul Bright
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: McAlpine Creek Greenway Trail, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 08-1420
Dear Mr. Bright:
Thank you for your letter of June 9, 2008, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Peter Sandbeck 61P1e?
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
North Carolina
lviichael F. Easley, Governor
June 18, 2008
Mr. Paul A. Bright
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Subject: McAlpine Creek Greenway; Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
CWS Project No. 2008-2223
D.cu jVU . 'BrigInt.
V1?Alliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area.
Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not
necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural
areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our
Program also has a new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location:
<http://nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us/nliis/public/gmap75_main.phtml>. The user name is "public" and the
password is "heritage". You may want to click "Help" for more info-nation.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. This service provides site
specific info-nation on GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NC OneMap website provides Element Occurrence (EO) ID
numbers (instead of species_name), and the data user is then. encouraged to contact_the Natural Heritage
Program for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
NHP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by
NHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit <ww<w.nconemap.com>, then click
on "FTP Data Download", and then "nheo.zip" [to the right of "Natural Heritage Element Occurrences"].
You may also e-mail NC OneMap at <datagnn.ncmail.net> for more information.
Please do-not hesitate to contact me at-9.1-9-71-5-86-9-7-if you-have questions or need further-information. -
Sincerely,
??,7 f. 2??--I '- -
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Ser`llce Center, Raleigh, Borth Carolina 27609-1601
Rhone: 919-733-4984A 1 FAX: [phone] Internet: m .enr.stata.nc.us1ENR/
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 150 % Post Consumer Paper
tqe Ca®ffiia
r
ia
`?

McAlpine Creek N Sardis Road to Providence Road
Site Specific Mitigation Plan
Prepared for: Mitigation Bank Review Team
c/o Charlotte Stormwater Services
600 East 4th Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Attn: Mr. Jarrod Karl
[phone]
[e-mail]
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
STORM
WATER
Services
Status: Revised Draft (abridged for PCN)
Submission Date: July, 2009
Prepared by: Tim Schueler, PE
McKim & Creed, PA
1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27606
Attn: Tim Schueler, PE, Project Manager
[phone]
[e-mail]
MCE#: 01274-0019
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 y
M
A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................. 5
1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Design Goals and Objectives .................................................................................. 6 .
1.3 Ownership of Bank Lands ...................................................................................... 6
1.4 Project Partners ....................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Existing Site Conditions .......................................................................................... 9
1.5.1 Watershed History .......................................................................................... 9
1.5.2 Watershed Geology ....................................................................................... 10
1.5.3 Watershed Soils ............................................................................................. 10
1.5.4 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 11
1.5.5 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites .................................................. 11
1.5.6 Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 11
1.5.7 Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 12
1.5.8 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................. 12
1.6 Existing Stream Physical and Geomorphic Descriptions ...................................... 13
1.6.1 Main Stem ..................................................................................................... 13
1.6.2 Tributary SR2 ................................................................................................ 14
1.6.3 Tributary SR3 ................................................................................................ 14
1.7 Biological Assessment .......................................................................................... 14
1.7.1 Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol ................................................... 14
1.7.2 Fish and Macroinvertebrates ......................................................................... 15
1.7.3 Fecal Coliform ............................................................................................... 16
1.8 Constraints ........................................................................................................... 16
1.8.1 Property Owners ........................................................................................... 16
1.8.2 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass .......................................................................... 17
1.8.3 Construction Access ...................................................................................... 17
2.0 MITIGATION DESIGN PLANS ............................................................................... 18
2.1 Stream Restoration ............................................................................................... 18
2.2 Wetland Design .................................................................................................... 19
2.2.1 SW1 Wetland Creation and Preservation ...................................................... 19
2.2.2 SW5 Wetland Preservation ............................................................................ 19
3.0 PRESERVATION MECHANISMS ........................................................................... 20
4.0 ACCOUNTING INFORMATION ............................................................................ 20
4.1 Anticipated Credits .............................................................................................. 20
4.2 Phasing ................................................................................................................. 20
4.2.1 Pre-Construction Phase ................................................................................. 20
4.2.2 General Construction Sequence ..................................................................... 21
4.3 Accounting and Financial Assurances .................................................................. 21
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 2

4.4 Preliminary Title Opinion ..................................................................................... 22
5.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 24
5.1 Channel Stability Success ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 Vegetative Success ...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.0 MONITORING PLAN ............................................................................................. 25
6.1 Pre-Construction Monitoring ............................................................................... 25
6.2 Post Construction As-built Plans .......................................................................... 25
6.3 Long-term Monitoring .......................................................................................... 26
7.0 MONITORING METHODS ..................................................................................... 27
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring ......................................................................................... 27
7.2 Biological Monitoring ........................................................................................... 27
7.3 Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................... 28
7.4 Wetland Monitoring ............................................................................................. 28
8.0 MAINTENANCE ISSUES ........................................................................................ 30
9.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................... 30
Tables
Table 1: Project Partnership by Construction Cost Responsibility ..................................................................... 8
Table 2: Component Summations for Entire Project ......................................................................................... .. 8
Table 3: Component Summations for Main Stem Only* .................................................................................. .. 8
Table 4: Component Summations for Tributary Projects Only* ....................................................................... .. 8
Table 5: Individual Project Components ....................................................................... 9
.....................................
Table 6: Project Area Soil T
e ..
yp
.......................................................................................................................... 10
Table 7: Waters, Wetlands and Stream Classification / Stream Quality Assessment Scoring* ........................ 12
Table 8: Habitat Data ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 9: Biotic Data ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 10: Fecal Coliform Data for McAlpine Creek (2003-2006) ...................................................................... 16
Table 11: Proposed Mitigation Credits .............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 12: Credit Release Schedule for Stream Restoration ...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 13: Credit Release Schedule for Wetland Enhancement ..........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 14: Title Opinion and Easement Summary .............................................................
. 23
.
..............................
Table 15: As-built Requirements
.......................................................................................................................
Table 16: Levels of Required Monitoring 26
26
...........................................................................................................
Table 17: Location
T
e
and Schedule for M
it
i
,
yp
,
on
or
ng .................................................................................... 29
Mavs
Map 1: Vicinity Map
Map 2: Cross Section Locations
Map 3: NRCS Soils
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 3
Appendices
Appendix A.1: Natural Channel Design Information
Appendix A.2: SR 2 Reference Reach Stream Data
Appendix A.3: SR 2 Impaired Reach Stream Data
Appendix A.4: SR 3 Impaired Reach Stream Data
Appendix A.S: Main Stem Impaired Reach Data
Appendix A.6: Main Stem Reference Reach Data (Edwards Branch)
Appendix A.7: Natural Resources Inventory (Carolina Wetland Services)
Appendix A.8: Existing Conditions Survey
Appendix B.1: Drainage Area Map
Appendix B.2: Hydrology HEC-HMS Computations (RCN's, Tc's, Etc)
Appendix B.3: Other Hydrologic Estimation Methods
Appendix C.1: Existing Conditions HEC-RAS Data
Appendix C.2: Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Data
Appendix D: SW1/SW4 Design
Appendix E: SR2 and SR3 Dimensionless Design
Appendix F: Bank Erosion, Competency and Sediment Transport
Appendix G.1: Easement Map
Appendix G.2: Easement Information
Appendix H: EDR Reports
Appendix I: Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank General Provisions
Appendix J: 2007 Concept Report
Appendix K: CWMTF Grant Information
Appendix L: Monitoring Protocol
Appendix M: References
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2004 Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) entered into a
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC), and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ), collectively referred to as the Mitigation Bank
Review Team (MBRT), to establish a Mitigation Bank. This bank is to perform as an
umbrella mitigation bank to provide "compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and
wetland impacts permitted by the USACE and the NC DWQ" (USAGE, 2004). The use of
this Bank is limited to the City of Charlotte and when determined appropriate Mecklenburg
County and the Charlotte - Mecklenburg Schools.
To meet requirements set forth by the MBI, CMSWS would like to request the approval by
the MBRT of the Site Specific Mitigation Plan (SSMP) for the McAlpine Environmental
Restoration Project (Sardis to Providence Roads) in Charlotte, North Carolina. CMSWS is
requesting to include the proposed restoration and enhancement of 4,930 linear feet (LF) of
stream and restoration and preservation of 2.77 acres of wetland along McAlpine Creek
and two contributing tributaries into the Umbrella Bank on which this agreement is
established and result in credits available for use to compensate for permitted and
unavoidable stream and wetland impacts.
1.1 Project Location
This Charlotte project is located within the Catawba River Basin within the NC DWQ
sub-basin 03-08-34 and in the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit
03050103. Specifically, this project is located on the McAlpine Creek main stem and
adjacent watershed for the section of McAlpine Creek between Sardis and
Providence Roads (see Map 1 "Vicinity Map" under Maps section). It is bounded
upstream by Sardis Road and downstream by Providence Road. The southern edge
of the project (stream left as one looks downstream) is defined by several City rights
of way including Old Bell Road. The northern edge of the project (stream right) is
defined by several City rights of way including Valleybrook Drive.
Coordinates for the upstream limit and downstream limit of project work,
respectively are 35° 08' 14.30" N, 80° 46' 04.64"W and 35° 07' 42.44" N, 80° 46'
51.76"W. The project consists of the following:
¦ 5,020 feet of stream work along the main stem (denoted as MS);
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 5
¦ 2,780 feet of restoration along tributaries to main stem (denoted as SR2 and
SR3);
¦ 0.20 acres of wetland restoration and 1.28 acres of wetland preservation
(denoted as SW1);
¦ 1.29 acres of wetland preservation (denoted as SW5).
1.2 Design Goals and Objectives
All surface waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards for Class C
waters (fishable, swimmable). McAlpine Creek is listed as Class C waters. To that
end, primary goals of this SSMP are:
• Improve water quality by reducing total suspended solids (TSS) and nutrient
loading
• Reduce structural flooding downstream
• Improve and restore hydrologic connection to floodplains
• Restore aquatic and terrestrial habitat
• Enhance recreational and educational opportunities
• Provide flood water storage
• Create mitigation credit
To accomplish these goals, existing incised, eroding, and channelized sections of the
McAlpine mainstem (MS) and associated tributaries between Sardis and Providence
Roads will be geomorphologically stabilized while coordinating environmental
improvements with Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) and private landowners.
Wetland restoration and enhancement, flood mitigation and water quality projects
are also slated for construction on the McAlpine floodplain within the project area.
The construction of these facilities along with environmental work by others will
help allow for the eventual 'de-listing' of this portion of McAlpine Creek from the
North Carolina Department of Water Quality (DWQ) 303(d) list for excessive fecal
coliform colonies, excess turbidity and general impairment of biologic activities.
1.3 Ownership of Bank Lands
CMSWS will hold conservation easements, in perpetuity, on all Bank Sites within the
project area (McAlpine Creek between Sardis and Providence Roads) as deemed
appropriate by the MBRT. Conservation easements will allow CMSWS to preserve,
maintain, and protect the Bank Sites. Any activity that does not retain the ultimate
goal of the Bank will be prohibited. As stated in the MBI, Bank Lands must be free of
all liens and/or encumbrances that may interfere with preservation and/or legal
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 6
constraints in relation to conservation easements (see Easement Exhibit Under
Appendix G.1). The General Provisions Section of CMSWS's MBI includes additional
clarification (Appendix I). Specifically, conservation mechanisms are categorized as
follows:
McAlpine Mainstem (MS):
Private and County land easements will be held by the City of Charlotte with
easements designated for either Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) use
or for Mitigation Bank use. Note that CWMTF easement areas are not part of this
SSMP request and are funded separately whereas 'Mitigation Bank' easement areas
are part of this SSMP. Easement areas for CWMTF use may be recorded as true
easement maps or recorded without mapping as 'declarations of conservation
easement' depending on location. All easements for mitigation use will be mapped.
See Appendix G for more detail.
Tributary Work (SR2, SR3, SW1, SW4 and SW5):
Private/County land easement will be held by City of Charlotte with mapped
easements designated as "Mainstem", "SR2" etc. See Appendix G for more detail.
1.4 Project Partners
The entire project will be built by three project partners: the City of Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County and the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). A
summary of partner participation by construction dollars is listed under Table 1. The
mainstem portion is being 60% financed by CWMTF and therefore the first 3,200' of
mainstem stream work was not considered eligible for mitigation banking.
Therefore, this SSMP does not include mitigation banking request for the mainstem
work from Sardis Road (00+00) to approximate main stem station 32+00; only the
remaining 2,150 feet of work was considered under this SSMP. This project is
projected to start construction in October of 2009 and be complete by December of
2010. A summary of major project components can be found in Table 2, Table 3,
Table 4, and Table 5.
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 7
Table 1: Project Partnership by Construction Cost Responsibility
Partner Project Area Cost Percent of
total
All wetland areas,
City of Charlotte water quality areas
$1
114
000*
44%
and tributary ,
,
stream restoration
Mecklenburg Mainstem stream

County
restoration $555,000** 22%
Clean Water

Management Trust Mainstem stream
$845,000**
34%
Fund restoration
TOTAL $2,514,000 100%
*based on 90% plans engineer's cost estimate; "d edicated funding
Table 2: Component Summations for Entire Project
Restoration Level FT/AC
Stream Restoration 4,370'
Stream Enhancement 560'
Wetland Creation 0.20 ac
Wetland Preservation 2.57 ac
Totals 4,93072.77 ac
Table 3: Component Summations for Main Stem Only*
Restoration Level FT/AC
Stream Restoration 1,590'
Stream Enhancement 560'
Totals 2,150'
*Mecklenburg portion only, no CWMTF work
Table 4. Component Summations for Tributary Projects Only*
Restoration Level F[YAC
Stream Restoration 2,780'
Wetland Creation 0.20 ac
Wetland Preservation 2.57 ac
Totals 2,780'12:77 ac
*City of Charlotte
Notes
Work not part
of SSMP
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 8
Table 5: Individual Project Components
Reach ID Rest. Level Approach Prop. LF/AC Prop'
Stationing
MS* Reach I Restoration Priority 3 240' 32+00 to 34+40
MS Reach II Restoration Priority 3 510' 34+40 to 39+50
MS Reach III Restoration Priority 3 450' 39+50 to 44+00
MS Reach W Enhancement I Priority 3 560' 44+00 to 49+60
MS Reach V Restoration Priority 3 390' 49+60 to 53+50
Mainstem subtotal 2,150'
SR2** Reach I Restoration Priority 2 300' 00+00 to 03+00
SR2 Reach II Restoration Priority 2 460' 03+00 to 07+60
SR2 Reach III Restoration Priority 1 1475' 07+60 to 22+35
SR2 Reach IV Restoration Priority 2 175' 00+00 to 01+75
SR3 Restoration Priority 1 370' 00+00 to 03+70
Tributary subtotal 2,780'
SWl*** temporal Wetland

and vernal pools
Restoration na 0.20 ac na

SW1 ex wetlands Wetland
na
1.28 ac
na
Preservation
SW5 Wetland na 1.29 ac na
Preservation
TOTAL 4,930'/ 2.77 ac
*MS--main stem, **SR=stream reach, ***SW=stormwater
1.5 Existing Site Conditions
1.5.1 Watershed History
Environmental stresses to riparian and in-stream habitat along the main stem
of McAlpine Creek, as well as the tributaries feeding the main stem between
Sardis and Providence Road, have been caused by increased watershed
imperviousness due to development of the Charlotte metropolitan area. A
chronology of topography maps in the Environmental Data Resources,
Incorporated (EDR) report, Appendix H shows this trend. The majority of
development for the 40.1 square mile drainage area to McAlpine Creek has
occurred without adequate stormwater controls. The most recent land use
change information available shows an increase in 'urban' land use by 50% in
the Catawba drainage basin from 1982 to 1992 (NC DWQ 2004).
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 9
1.5.2 Watershed Geology
The project site is located in an urbanized portion of the Southern Piedmont
Physiographic Province. It is characterized by broad, gently rolling inter-
stream areas and by steeper slopes along the drainage ways. The historic
dendritic drainage patterns of the watershed have been substantially replaced
by curb and gutter stormwater drainage systems. Likewise, the normally
broad alluvial valleys have been narrowed due to the encroachment of
residential and commercial development and associated transportation
systems.
1.5.3 Watershed Soils
The soil within the study area as identified by the National Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps as primarily loam with sandy clay
loam present in the upland areas (see Map 3). The predominate soil type
encompassing the McAlpine Creek corridor is Monacan loam which qualifies
as a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) class "C" soil. The Monacan soil series is
characterized by relatively deep soils, somewhat poorly drained with
moderate permeability rates with hydric inclusions. Table 6 provides a list of
soils identified at their respective project locations and specifies their hydric
soil classification as determined by the NRCS national hydric soil list. Refer to
Map 3 "NRCS Soils" for a depiction of these soil boundaries.
Table 6. Project Area Soil Type
Project Area Soil Type Description HSG Hydric Soil
Main stem MO Monacan loam C Y
MO Monacan loam C Y
WkD Wilkes loam C N
SR 2
WkE Wilkes loam C N
HeB Helena sandy loam C Y
MeB Mecklenburg sandy loam C N
SR 3 WkE Wilkes loam C N
MO Monacan loam C Y
MO Monacan loam C Y
SW 1
WkE Wilkes loam C N
SW 4 MO Monacan loam C Y
WuD Wilkes loam C N
MO Monacan loam C Y
SW 5
WkE Wilkes loam C N
Source: NRCS
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 10
1.5.4 Cultural Resources
Carolina Wetland Services (CWS) served as a subconsultant to McKim &
Creed and coordinated with the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
for cultural and archeological information of relevance for each site. CWS
forwarded a letter to SHPO on June 9, 2008. In a letter response dated July 21,
2008, SHPO responded that they are aware of no historic resources on the site.
Therefore, the agency had no comment on the undertaking as proposed. See
Appendix A.7 for copies of these letters.
1.5.5 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
McKim & Creed requested three EDR reports for this project on behalf of
CMSWS. The first report was a Certified Sanborn Map Report. The second
report was an EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck. The last report was an EDR
Historical Topographic Map Report. The EDR report depicts what known
environmental constraints are located within a one mile radius of the project
focus. The reports indicate information available from existing federal, state
and local government data bases for items such as superfund sites, wetlands
and leaking underground storage tanks. Additionally, the reports contain
topographic mapping of the area dating back to 1905. They also indicate the
presence of leaking gas service station tanks well off site from any of the
proposed project sites. No findings within the EDR reports affected site
selection, or design. All three reports may be found under Appendix H.
1.5.6 Wetlands
CWS delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and wetlands in accordance
with the most recent guidance of the USACE and NC DWQ. The results of the
on-site field investigations conducted by CWS indicate that there are four
jurisdictional stream channels, five jurisdictional wetland areas, two non-
jurisdictional channels located within the property and one 'open water' pond
(see Table 7 and Appendix A.7, Figure 1). Jurisdictional waters include
McAlpine Creek and unnamed tributaries to McAlpine Creek.
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 11
Table 7. Waters, Wetlands and Stream Classification / Stream Quality Assessment Scoring*
Feature Classification USACE NC DWQ
Score Score
Main stem
Jurisdictional Perennial RPW 61
Trib SR2 Jurisdictional Perennial RPW 53
Trib SR3 Jurisdictional Intermittent RPW 28
Adjacent to Perennial RPW
Wetland AA n/a
Wetland BB Adjacent to Perennial RPW
n/a
Wetland CC (SW5) Adjacent to Perennial RPW n/a
Wetland DD Adjacent to Perennial RPW
n/a
Wetland EE Adjacent to Perennial RPW
n/a
51
36.5
37
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pond FF (open water: Adjacent to Perennial RPW
n/a n/a
SW4)
*only lists Waters which pertain to work areas, see Appendix A.7 for a complete site list
1.5.7 Vegetation
CWS tagged and identified 2,243 trees greater than twelve inches in diameter
within the study area (trees were be tagged with numbered aluminum
circular tags placed with aluminum nails). Tree size (diameter at breast
height), species and relative health (excellent, good, fair, poor, and dead) were
cataloged. All trees were mapped using a sub-meter GPS unit. CWS
conducted a detailed survey of existing native and invasive vegetation which
found that a large part of the flood plain (including the wetland area SW5 to
be enhanced) to be lightly to moderately infested with invasive and exotic
vegetation. The existing wetland area SW5 contains some infestation along its
fringe but is otherwise dominated by natives. A complete description of the
existing vegetation as well as all the trees tagged as part of CWS's survey can
be found under Appendix A.7.
1.5.8 Threatened and Endangered Species
CWS solicited information pertaining to threatened and endangered species,
historic structures/areas, existing cemeteries and the like through use of
documents such as US Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species for Mecklenburg County, North
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 12

Carolina. A letter was forwarded to the NC Natural Heritage Program on June
9, 2008. In response to this request, the Natural Heritage Program dated June
18, 2008 indicated that the agency has no record of rare species, significant
natural communities, significant natural heritage areas or
conservation/managed areas at the site or within a mile of the site. Response
letter may be found under Appendix A.7.
The Natural Heritage Program website and database were consulted and a
protected species review was conducted to determine the potential for the
occurrence of animal and plant species formally proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened by current Federal regulations [Federal Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)] within the subject property
boundary. The review consisted of a literature and records search, and
pedestrian observations performed by CWS biologists. Existing plants were
identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine whether the observed
specimen is protected. Plant species identified in this report follow taxonomy
described by Radford, et al; see Appendix A.7. No endangered or threatened
species or critical habitat was observed within the project area during an
onsite pedestrian survey.
1.6 Existing Stream Physical and Geomorphic Descriptions
See Map 1 for locations of reaches described herein as well as a general description of
bankfull natural channel design methodology under Appendix A.1.
1.6.1 Main Stem
The main stem between Sardis and Providence Roads is perennial and is
approximately 5,200 feet long has been dredged and straightened in the early
part of the 201hcentury. It has characteristics of an 'improved' storm drainage
channel, particularly in the upper part of the stream near Sardis Road. This
portion of the mainstem has virtually no sinuosity, pattern or definable pools
and all riffles are heavily embedded with sand and silt. Banks average 90
degrees or more and are mostly denuded. About halfway between Sardis and
Providence Roads (proposed stream station 32+00), the stream does meander
slightly and steepens which has exposed some bedrock. The quality of the
riffle substrate, riffle/pool patterns etc are still poor but superior to the
upstream portion. Stream classification is difficult to establish due to
anthropological impacts but was best estimated as a transitional Rosgen
E4/1-G4/1. Adjacent vegetation varies but generally is mature hardwood
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 13
forest on stream left and cleared sanitary sewer and gas line right-of-way on
stream right. Extensive detail regarding fieldwork for this reach may be found
under Appendix A.5.
1.6.2 Tributary SR2
The tributary is close to a mile in length. The portion slated for restoration
consists of the lower 2,200 feet. Stream Restoration project 2 (SR2) begins as a
relatively stable natural perennial stream and is a Rosgen B4/1 channel above
the project area. Measurements for this stable section served as the reference
reach for the lower impaired SR2 section. There is a distinct head cut which
separates the upper stable from the lower unstable reach and this is where
restoration is slated to start. At this point, conditions rapidly deteriorate and
the channel changes to a series of F4 and G4 conditions with poor riffle pool
sequences and limited habitat, much of which has been affected by the down-
cutting through legacy sediments. Sanitary laterals have been exposed in half
a dozen locations. Adjacent vegetation is almost complete mature hardwood
forest with one small portion of cleared sanitary sewer right-of-way. Detailed
findings for this reach may be found under Appendix A.3.
1.6.3 Tributary SR3
SR3 drains the Colonial Properties apartment complex and is a 400 foot long
G5c heavily manipulated intermittent stream within the Colonial Properties
apartment complex. This intermittent gully is moderately to highly eroded
and has been manipulated by several utility crossings. Adjacent vegetation is
almost entirely cleared utility right-of-way. Detailed findings for this reach
may be found under Appendix A.4.
1.7 Biological Assessment
1.7.1 Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol
A summary of publically-available Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol
(MHAP) data can be found under Table 8. The range of possible scoring is
from zero to 200 with 200 being the best possible score. The range of scoring is
as follows:
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 14
¦ 0 to 60: degraded
¦ 60 to 109: impaired
¦ 110 to 159: partially supporting
¦ 159 to 200: supporting
The MS averaged from 73 to 120, indicating impaired to partially supporting
habitat conditions. It has been generally reported that a score of 115 or higher
is an acceptable goal for restoration.
Table 8. Habitat Data
Location 2005 Score* 2006 Score* 2007 Score* 2008 Score*
MC38 (Sardis 112.5 113 119 108
bridge)
*scores are averages of all surveys for that year - source of data is CMSWS
1.7.2 Fish and Macroinvertebrates
A summary of fish and benthic data surveyed by CMSWS can be found under
Table 9 and indicates that the McAlpine main stem is in generally poor to fair
health. Quantitative biotic indices (Index of Biotic Integrity and
Ephemeroptera+Plecoptera+Trichoptera or EPT index) were taken from
available Mecklenburg County monitoring records. The weighted EPT score
was determined by taxa richness (a weighting of numbers of species,
individuals within those species and their tolerance to pollution for
Ephmeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera). The Biotic index is measured by
weight-averaging all species (not just EPT) with tolerance and abundance.
Weighted biotic index score is a correlation between the biotic index and a
range of values for various qualities (fair, poor, etc). The weighted average of
both EPT and the biotic index score allows a more holistic evaluation of
biological integrity which can then be given a description water quality rating
(good, fair, etc).
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 15
Table 9: Biotic Data
Sampling Location Sample k
Date W u z
"'' . r0 y U
o ? ? o
w .a
McAlpine Creek at 7/18/2007 6 1.4 7.02
Sardis Rd
McAlpine Creek at 8/25/2006 6 1.4 6.95
Sardis Rd
McAlpine Creek at 9/6/2005 5 1 7.16
Sardis Rd
McAlpine Creek at 7/2/2004 5 1 6.92
Sardis Rd
* Excellent:5, Good:4, Good-Fair:3, Fair:2, Poor:1 - Source: CMSWS
1.7.3 Fecal Coliform
weighted weighted water
biotic average quality
index EPT/ rating*
score* biotic
index*
2 1.7 fair
2 1.7 fair
2 1.5 fair
poor
2 1.5 fair
poor
CMSWS also provided fecal coliform grab sample data based on variable
baseflow from 2005 and 2006 as measured by CMSWS staff is as shown under
Table 10. Data presented is in terms of the most probable number (NUN) of
colonies of fecal coliforms based on grab samples.
Table 10: Fecal Coliform Data for McAlpine Creek (2003-2006)
Sampling Location Number of grab Range of values,
samples, n MPN1100 ml
Sardis Bridge
(MC38) 27 41 to greater than 2,400
'EPA Guidelines, 200 MPN/100 ml - Source of Table data is CMSWS
1.8 Constraints
1.8.1 Property Owners
Percent of samples
exceeding human
contact water
quality guidelines*
78%
As of the preparation of this report, a portion of the easements and
declarations have been finalized with the remainder under negotiation. We
understand that this SSMP will not be 100% permitted until documentation
that all easement and declarations have been granted. Please see Appendices
G.1 and G.2 for complete detail. Temporary construction site access and
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 16
permanent maintenance access for the project will be as described under
Section 3.0.
The existing forty-two inch sanitary trunk line located adjacent to the MS
along stream right (as one looks downstream) provides a vertical constraint
for the SR3 design. The sanitary trunk line poses a constraint for grading and
the ability to establish a forested riparian buffer in this area. However, a
native herbaceous buffer will be planted within the easement limits. Various
existing storm drain, sanitary, electrical and gas utilities constrain the project
in a minor fashion but these constraints have been incorporated into the
design. The proposed fifty-four-inch sanitary trunk line on stream left
represents both a lateral constraint for the mainstem grading as well as a
vertical constraint for SR2. It also inhibits the ability to establish a forested
riparian buffer in this area; however a native herbaceous buffer will be
planted within the easement limits. There are several existing sanitary laterals
which have become exposed in the SR2 channel; several will be re-buried and
protected as part of the stream restoration work.
1.8.2 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
The existing FEMA flood plain model for McAlpine Creek was retrieved from
CMSWS Floodplain Mitigation Program and its limits for the main stem are
shown on the design plans. Existing one hundred-year flood plain analysis for
the side tributaries was developed based on adding cross sections to the
existing FEMA model to expand it. A proposed FEMA flood plain model was
then generated to determine if the proposed grading would affect the existing
flood plain elevation. The resulting study determined that there would be no
net increase in the 100-year flood plain (termed a 'no rise'). This report is not
included as part of this SSMP.
1.8.3 Construction Access
Construction access for the main stem work will be through access points at
Sardis Road, Providence Road, Via Romano Drive, Mountainview Drive and
Old Bell Road (see Map 1). Access will be available along stream left and right
through the existing and proposed sanitary line easements. SR2 work will be
accessed through the sanitary easement as well as a stabilized construction
entrance off of Mountainview Drive. SR3 work will be accessed from the
sanitary easement on stream right. SW 4 work will be accessed off of Via
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 17

Romano Drive. SW1 work will be accessed off of the sanitary easement and a
stabilized construction entrance off of Old Bell Road.
2.0 MITIGATION DESIGN PLANS
As previously discussed, there are ten stream reaches and two wetland sites that will be
either restored or enhanced throughout the project area which can be considered for
mitigation credit. The primary approach of the restoration design is to construct streams
with a stable dimension, pattern, and profile that have access to the floodplain at flows
greater than the bankfull stage, or bank stabilization in areas where constraints inhibit
restoration. The enhancement design will focus on bank stabilization, grade control, flood
attenuation, removing invasive species, reestablishing native species, and improving
habitat and increasing species diversity. See the McAlpine Environmental Restoration Project
(Sardis to Providence Roads) Construction Drawings and Map 1 for a depiction of restoration
reaches and wetland sites. Some general discussion of design methods are as follows:
2.1 Stream Restoration
Bank protection is incorporated into the restoration designs based on three levels of
stabilization:
¦ All areas receive three inches of top soil, coir mat, seeding and live
stake or other vegetation at the toe of slope with coir log as needed;
¦ Areas requiring more protection due to higher anticipated shear
stresses will be designed with root wads, and encapsulated fill layers
as modeling warrants;
¦ Banks which also protect sanitary sewers will have an additional stone
footer layer at the toe of bank to provide more protection.
Long term protection for all areas will be provided in all areas by rooted vegetation.
The design incorporates grade controls for the following conditions:
¦ Severe shear stress points (such as utility crossings) primarily through
the use of log and rock J-vanes and cross vanes and V-log drops;
¦ Downstream ends of riffles to maintain riffle stability through the use
of log and rock vanes;
¦ Confluence points where stream segments or sub tributary/swales will
enter the component areas through the use of rock W-weirs and V-log
drops.
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 18
Habitat enhancement is critical to mitigation banking success. SR2 and SR3 habitat
enhancement will be based on profile and dimension change to improve pool depth,
riffle/pool ratio and reduce riffle embeddedness. Root wads and wood J-hooks are
meant to introduce large woody debris (LWD) permanently in this stream. Main
stem habitat enhancement will be through the use of log sills installed to increase
erosion and pool areas (as is the case under current conditions where tree stumps
exists at the toe of slope) as well as promoting inner berm bar growth and riffle
creation. Live stakes and other vegetative installations at the toe of slope will also
trap floatable vegetative material, particularly leaves which will provide better
benthic feeding sources. Live staking will occur at the bottom toe of all new stream
banks. The option to substitute tubleings is included in the plan if some or all of the
stream work is completed during the growing season. The Construction Drawings
include planting/preservation plan for the newly created stream banks as well as the
'streamside' buffer.
2.2 Wetland Design
2.2.1 SW1 Wetland Creation and Preservation
This project area consists of several small temporal pools and vernal pools
(vernal pools will have impervious linings) totaling 0.20 acres. Temporal
pools will be cut into the flood plain to the depth of existing underlying
hydric soil where possible. Lined vernal pools are meant to develop
hydric conditions over time in areas thought to be former wetlands as per
both National Wetland Inventory mapping and wetland boundaries
provided by others on the Sanitary Sewage System Improvements McAlpine
Creek Relief Sewer Division No. 2 plans prepared by McKim & Creed in
2000 for CMU. Existing wetland areas documented in 2008 will not be
impacted and surface drainage for these wetlands will not be appreciably
altered. Wetland design for this area is meant to mimic the conditions of
the existing adjacent wetland Areas AA through DD; see Appendix A.7.
The SWI work area will have easement protection for the newly created
0.2 acres of wetlands as well as 1.28 acres of existing wetlands meant to be
preserved.
2.2.2 SW5 Wetland Preservation
Our design will preserve the existing 1.29 acre wetland by a combination
of (1) invasives control; (2) long term hydrologic support through longer
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 19

•
more gradual base flow support from the newly retrofitted extended
detention pond SW4 and (3) better water quality received from that pond
as it will treat for 85% total suspended solids (TSS) removal, etc.
3.0 PRESERVATION MECHANISMS
Permanent conservation easement areas will be established along McAlpine Creek and
tributary projects SR2, SR3, SW1 and SW5 from Sardis Road to Providence Road. The City
will hold all property rights to the easements in perpetuity. "The conservation easement
shall ..., preserve all natural areas, and prohibit all use of the property inconsistent with its
use as a mitigation property, including any activity that would materially alter the
biological integrity or functional and educational value of wetlands within the site,
consistent with the Restoration Plan" (2004, USACE). Copies of the City's Standard
Conservation Easement and Mecklenburg County's Declaration of Easement and Covenant
as well as the Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank General Provisions terms are
located in Appendix I. Note that areas required for CWMTF construction are not part of this
submission for mitigation credit and are covered under either mapped easements for the
City to control or unmapped 'declarations of conservation easement' per CWMTF
stipulation.
4.0 ACCOUNTING INFORMATION
4.1 Anticipated Credits
PENDING.
4.2 Phasing
The project will be constructed in one phase and will follow the subsequent general
implementation sequence. Overall phasing time line may be affected by final
easement/declaration acquisition time.
4.2.1 Pre-Construction Phase
¦ Approval of a site specific mitigation plan, a restoration plan and
an enhancement plan for the McAlpine Creek Restoration Project
¦ Construction grant from Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) for the first 3,200 foot portion of the main stem work is
already in receipt (see Appendix K)
¦ Apply and receive all applicable permits (401/404, NPDES, etc.)
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 20
¦ Contract bids:
MCALPINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT
(SARDIS TO PROVIDENCE ROADS) PLANS
McKim & Creed, PA
Raleigh and Charlotte offices, NC
¦ Award contract
4.2.2 General Construction Sequence
See "Construction Sequence" as can be found on the Title Sheet of the
Construction Drawings. Note that this project is very large and portions of the
project may be completed independently.
¦ Mobilize all equipment to site.
¦ Install construction entrances as needed.
¦ Install haul road protection as necessary along CMU rights-of-
way from site entrances.
¦ Install any temporary stream crossings.
¦ Begin stream construction from the upstream extent of the project
boundary and progress downstream, using stream off-line or
pump around operations where applicable within each stream
section.
¦ After construction is complete, stabilize with erosion control
matting and permanent vegetation before demobilizing.
¦ Remove temporary stream crossings.
¦ Demobilize grading equipment from the site and remove
temporary construction entrances.
¦ Seed, mulch, and stabilize staging areas, stockpile areas, haul
road, and construction entrances.
4.3 Accounting and Financial Assurances
The Bank will be sponsored by CMSWS, a municipal entity, and will be governed
under the NC Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act (North Carolina
General Statute 159-28), which will assure the completion of all outstanding projects
and enforce procedural protocols. The Bank will be funded by the CMSWS utility
fees. The Bank will be used primarily for CMSWS's capital projects. When feasible,
the Bank may be used by Mecklenburg County and City departments, including but
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 21

not limited to, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department, the Aviation
Department, and political subdivisions such as Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.
CMSWS Utility Fees and funds from mitigation credit sales will be used for all
phases of the project including planning and preliminary design phases, the final
design plan, construction activities, and as-built monitoring and reporting. In
addition, these monies will be set aside for short-term and long term monitoring and
maintenance needs throughout the project area. Please note that CMSWS Utility fees
will be continually used throughout the life of the project to address unforeseen
circumstances or as supplemental revenue. Though CWMTF grant monies are being
used for stream improvements along the McAlpine mainstem (3,200' of the total
5,200' main stem reach), this work is excluded from the Mitigation Bank proposal.
This Bank will be managed under the Permit and Mitigation Information Tracking
System (PerMITS) accounting system to maintain accurate records of debits from the
proposed bank. A record of each debit will be reported to each member of the MBRT
within the allotted 30 days and an annual report will be submitted on the
anniversary of the execution of this agreement. All fiscal operations will be logged
through this system and reported to the MBRT on an annual basis as required by the
MBI. Within the CMSWS's budgeting and financial tracking system, the Bank's
revenue, contracts, fund transfers and expenses are housed in a separated account
and tracked independently from all other storm water projects. In addition,
stream/wetland-restoration-dedicated revenues and fund transfers are housed
within the Bank in a separate revenue account.
4.4 Preliminary Title Opinion
Mecklenburg County owns several of the parcels within the project outright and
easements on these public lands will be in the format of either Declaration of
Conservation Easement for CWMTF use or mapped and recorded easements to be
held by the City. A series of private property conservation easement maps will also
be required. All easements, public or private shall be held under the control of
CMSWS in perpetuity. The final Title Opinion for the mitigation will be completed
and submitted to the MBRT for its approval. Table 11 is a draft summary of that
information. Copies of easements to date may be found under Appendix G.2.
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 22

a
Table 11: Title Opinion and Easement Summary

MCCE Easement or
Feature Parcel ID Parcel Owner Declaration of

Intent
1'
MS, SR3,
1A,
SW5 18735102 Prtnrshp Multifamily C/O Colonial Realty Lmted P easement
2,2A
3,4 MS, SW4 18735104 Prtnrshp Multifamily C/O Colonial Realty Lmted P easement
5A,
A,
MS 18734201 BVF-II Providence Limited And LLC Berkshire Prop. easement
not part of
6 N49 ,Qxv4
easement
protection*
7 MS 18729112 Frank E. Lorch and Wife easement
not part of
p ?c? easement
protection*
9 MS 18730101 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration**
10 MS 21335102 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept easement
11 MS 21335105 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept easement
12A,
12B MS, SR2 21335106 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept easement
13 MS 21 309108 Coun And Real Estate
13B B tY /Finance Dept easement
14 MS 21309109 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration-
15 MS 21309110 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration-
16 MS 21309111 Robert Bradford Lee And Patricia Moran easement
17 MS 18729199 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration`
declaration(MS)**
18 MS, SWl 21309114 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept and easement
(SWi)
declaration(MS)**
19 MS, SWi 21309134 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept and easement
(SW1)
declaration(MS)**
20 MS, SWl 21309115 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept and easement
(SWi)
declaration(MS)**
21 MS, SWl 21309116 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept and easement
(SWl)
22 MS, SWl 21309117
23 MS, SW1 21309118
McKim & Creed, PA
dedaration(MS)**
Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept and easement
(SW1)
declaration(MS)**
Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept and easement
(SWi)
July, 2009
23
A
t

MCE Easement or
Feature Parcel ID Parcel Owner Declaration of
ID
ID
Intent
dedaration(MS)**
24 MS, SWl 21309119 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept and easement
(SWi)
declaration(MS)**
25 MS, SW1 21309120 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept and easement
(SWi)
declaratition(MS)"
26 MS, SW1 21309121 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept and easement
(SW1)
27 MS 21309122 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration'
28 MS 21309123 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration*
29 MS 21309124 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration"
not part of
30 MS 25 RobeFt e ...,v„_ n ,a j
1 c, b A
oy
e easement
protection*
31 MS 21309126 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration"
32 MS 213419127 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration"
33 Ms 21309133 Mecklenburg County And Real Estate /Finance Dept declaration**
34 SR2 21309107 Ernesto Moran And Margarita Moran easement'
35 SR2 21336361 Ridge LLC Walker Steven Homes Bishops easement
36 SR2 21309106 Donald R li Harris And Tammy Harris easement
37 SR2 21309105 John Hugh Costello And Cathy R Costello easement
*there are no easements or declarations for this area; could not come to agreement with land owner
**CWMTF area not considered for mitigation purposes; mapped easement not required
' parcel under negotiation to be purchased by City
Utility easements present within the project area include the following:
¦ Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility sanitary sewer line
¦ NCDOT, CDOT
¦ Piedmont Natural Gas
Please see Construction Documents for more detailed property owner information,
boundaries and utility locations.
5.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA
PENDING.
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 24

6.0 MONITORING PLAN
Stream monitoring of restoration projects is usually considered obligatory per USACE and
DWQ permitting and is usually required for five years. There are four levels of required
monitoring as spelled out by Section 10 of the USACE/DWQ 404/401 permit and detailed in
the City of Charlotte CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document (2005):
¦ Level 4 (for Enhancement Level 2 projects): reference photos, vegetation
survival analysis and geomorphic channel stability analysis
¦ Level 3 (for preservation projects): reference photos
¦ Level 2 (for Enhancement Level 2 mitigation projects): photo monitoring,
plant survival tracking and geomorphic channel stability analysis (document
two bankfull events)
¦ Level 1- most intense with four sub levels (1a, 1b, 1c and 1d)
McKim & Creed assumes that Level 1a (stream mitigation) and 1c (wetland mitigation)
monitoring will be required (without biological monitoring). Monitoring would be
completed annually for five years. Level 1a involves reference photos, vegetation survival
analysis, geomorphic channel stability analysis, biological survey analysis,
fish/macroinvertebrate analysis and habitat assessment using (MHAP) protocol. Level 1c
refers to wetland mitigation projects and involves reference photos, vegetative survival
analysis, soil hydrology analysis and functionality analysis.
6.1 Pre-Construction Monitoring
Pre-construction monitoring will be conducted as detailed under Table 12 to provide
a base line for certain monitoring protocols.
6.2 Post Construction As-built Plans
As-built channel survey will be performed for Restoration and Enhancement Level I
projects. They will include the restored channel's dimension, pattern, and profile.
Permanent cross-sections will be established at an approximate frequency of one per
20 bankfull-width lengths along the channel length and should represent a 1:1 ratio
of riffles to pools. An as-built survey shall include photo documentation of cross-
sections and structures, longitudinal profile for 2,000 LF of the restored MS, 1000 LF
of SR 2 work and the complete 400 LF work area for SR3. The as-built shall include
a, plan view diagram, vegetation information, and pebble counts for the cross-
sections; see Table 12 for a summary of this information.
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 25

a
Table 12: As-built Requirements
Vegetative
Project Longitudinal Cross Piezometer Survey Photo
Pebble Counts
Area Profile Sections Installation Plots (1/4 Survey
ac)
MS 2000 LF 4 Cal each cross section na 4 yes
SR2 1000 LF 4 @ each cross section na 3 yes
SR3 400 LF 2 @ each cross section na 1 yes
SWl na na na 3 2 yes
SW5 na na na 1 2 yes
6.3 Long-term Monitoring
This monitoring plan is in accordance with the CMSWS Mitigation Monitoring
Guidelines (MMG), which meet or exceed the requirements of the USACE's Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003) and the requirements of the MBI. See Table 13 for
the Monitoring Level requirement per proposed stream design mitigation level.
Each site will be monitored and evaluated for five years post construction, or until
the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer, to determine the success
or failure of the following monitoring level benchmarks. The monitoring plan
includes the evaluation of channel stability, ecological function, and photo
documentation, as well as, a long term management protocol. Monitoring reports
will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the MBRT. If
failure should occur, CMSWS will perform the corrective action indicated to return
the site to conditions regarded as successful by the USACE and the MBRT.
Monitoring Level 1a will be performed once per year for a five-year monitoring
period and will apply to all Restoration and Enhancement Level I sites within the
project area. At least one bankfull event must be documented within the monitoring
period. If two events have failed to occur during this time period monitoring will
continue until the second event has been documented, unless the USACE and NC
DWQ, in consultation with the other MBRT agencies, determine that additional
monitoring is not required. Per the MMG, this monitoring will also include reference
photos, vegetation survival analysis, biological survey, water quality analysis and
habitat assessment (MHAP methodology).
Table 13: Levels of Required Monitoring
Proposed Design Feature Design Approach
MS Reach I
MS Reach H
MS Reach III
Restoration (P2/P3)
Restoration (P2/P3)
Restoration (P2/P3)
McKim & Creed, PA
July, 2009
Monitoring Level
Required
Level ] a
Level la
Level la
26

7.0
MS Reach IV Enhancement Level I (P4) Level la
MS Reach V Restoration (P2/P3) Level la
SR2 Reach I Restoration (P2) Level la
SR2 Reach II Restoration (P2) Level la
SR2 Reach III Restoration (P1) Level la
SR2 Reach IV Restoration (P2) Level la
SR3 Restoration (Pl) Level la
SW1 temporal and pools Wetland Restoration Level lc
SW1/SW5 Wetland Preservation Level 3
Monitoring Level 1c is for wetland restoration projects (SW1) and including
reference photos, plant survival analysis, soil hydrology analysis and functionality
analysis.
MONITORING METHODS
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring
Both stream and wetland sites will be monitoring for vegetative survival. The
methodology employed for vegetation monitoring will be in general accordance
with the MMG. Each vegetation plot will consist of a sixteen-foot wide rectangular
area extending from the edge of the bank to the outer extent of the conservation
easement on each side of the stream, wetland or BMP. Each plot will be permanently
marked in the field along its approximate centerline with four markers.
Additionally, photo points will be taken at the middle markers of each plot with
each photo facing across the channel towards the opposite bank or across the main
BMP axis. The purpose of the field observations will be to: (1) determine the success
of buffer re-vegetation and soil bioengineering methods utilized; (2) determine the
hardiness of plant species installed in relation to urban stream restoration; (3) note
distressed or dead plants; and (4) note areas with invasive species issues or other
management concerns. Additionally, photographs will be taken at areas where
concerns regarding vegetation (presence of invasives, easement encroachments, etc.)
are observed. Success will be measured based on an 80 percent survival rate of
planted vegetation after the first year. More detail on vegetation monitoring
protocol for stream work may be found under Appendix L.
7.2 Biological Monitoring
Biological monitoring for this project will be determined through monitoring efforts
conducted by CMSWS independently from monitoring work completed directly on
site. It will consist of collecting macroinvertebrate and fish data prior to construction
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 27
•
and at Year Five to determine if there has been a net benefit to the biological
communities as demonstrated by an increase in IBI and EPT scores.
7.3 Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring for this project will be determined through monitoring
efforts conducted by CMSWS independently from monitoring work completed
directly on site and it shall consist of a scored water quality index (WQI) value
which can be compared against pre, reference and as built conditions to show an
increase in the WQI after five years at the mouth of SR2 and the exit point for SW5.
7.4 Wetland Monitoring
Wetland monitoring efforts will be three-fold. Hydric soil creation will be monitored
through augering and classification based on USACE 1987 hydric soil criteria.
Indicators of wetland hydrology will be documented through piezometer readings.
Success shall be determined by showing that wetland hydrology and hydric
conditions have been maintained or enhanced over pre construction conditions and
that vegetative plots meet the tenets of "Vegetative Success" as described previously.
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 28

a
Table 14: Location, Type, and Schedule for Monitoring
Type Location Monitoring Schedule
Biological (streams)
Benthic Pre construction and
macroinvertebrate MS, SR2
after year 5
Fish
Water Quality
Stream Habitat
Bankfull
Verification
Cross Section
Survey
Pebble Count
Longitudinal
Profile
Vegetation (as-
built)
Vegetation
(Establishment
Phase)
Vegetation
(Growth Phase)
Hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric
soil and wetland
hydrology
McKim & Creed, PA
MS, SR2 Pre construction and
after year 5
Water Quality (streams)
MS (two locations), SR2 Pre construction and
(two locations) after year 5
Habitat (streams)
MS (two locations), Pre construction and
SR2, SR3 [four total] after year 5
Geomorphic (streams)
MS, SR2, SR3 @ riffle At least once within 5
cross sections year monitoring period
@ as-built XS locations As-built and years 1, 3
and 5 post construction
@ as-built XS locations As-built and years 1, 3
and 5 post construction
Lengths per Table 16 As-built and years 1, 3
and 5 post construction
Vegetation (all areas)
Four 1/4 acre plots for
the MS, three for SR2, Upon completion of
one for SR3 and two project construction;
each for SWl and SW5 "construction release."
[12 total]
Notes
Per MMG
Per MMG
Per MMG
MHAP methods per
MMG
Per MMG
Per MMG
Per MMG
Per MMG
Compare installation to
design. Set baseline for
future comparisons.
Three years following 15t Focuses on survival
see above complete growing season and replacement
after planting criteria of installed
vegetation.
Focuses on the overall
After establishment for function of the
See above remaining years of the vegetation in relation
monitoring period to project specific goals
(stability)
Wetlands Soils and Hydrology
Photos of soil pit
Pre-construction, As- profiles and
SWl, SW5 built, then annually for measurement of
five years groundwater within
installed piezometers
per MMG
July, 2009
29
a
8.0 MAINTENANCE ISSUES
Maintenance issues will vary and generally depend on the following:
¦ Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain
excavation difficult
¦ Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion
¦ Extreme hot, cold, wet or dry weather during and after construction can limit
vegetation growth, particularly temporary and permanent seeding
The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to
which a native buffer can be established
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and
commented in the as-built and monitoring reports. The conditions listed herein and any
other factors that may have necessitated maintenance will be discussed then.
9.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
CMSWS will institute a Long Term Management Plan responsible for assessing the
condition of bank sites and implementing the provisions to maintain the performance of
each site. The conservation easement that will be in place throughout the Project boundaries
will help to ensure that only activities deemed acceptable by the MBRT will be allowed. To
ensure that the project's continued success throughout its lifespan, the Long Term
Management Plan for the Project will be implemented following the five year monitoring
period and subsequent release of all mitigation credits.
CMSWS will visually inspect all components of the restoration project annually or less
frequently, as needed to ensure the project remains stable in perpetuity. Sources of
instability and other project deficiencies will be addressed as needed. CMSWS will also
send letters to all properties with Permanent Conservation Easements annually, reminding
the residents of the limits and restrictions of the easement area. Follow-up inspections will
be completed annually or less frequently, as needed to ensure compliance with easement
provisions. Invasive species will be managed semiannually or less frequently, as needed to
ensure the long term survivability of the planned vegetative community. All reporting will
be documented and kept on file for future reference.
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 30
r
Acronyms Used
Abxf-Bankfull Area
AC- Acre
BAE - Biological and Agricultural Engineering
BEHI - Bank Erosion Hazard Index
BHR - Bank Height Ratio
BMP- Best Management Practice
CC- Construction Costs
CFS- Cubic Feet per Second
CU FT - Cubic Feet
CLOMR - Conditional Letter of Map Revision
CMP- Corrugated Metal Pipe
CMSWS- Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater Services
CMU- Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
CWS- Carolina Wetland Services (subconsultant)
Dbkf- Bankfull Depth
D&E- Design & Engineering (costs)
EDR- Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EEP- Ecosystem Enhancement Program
EGL - energy gradient line
EMRRP - Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program
EPT - Ephemeroptera+Plecoptera+Trichoptera
ER - Entrenchment Ratio
FEMA - Federal Emergency Mapping Agency
FIRM- Flood Insurance Rate Map
FT- Feet
GIS - Geographic Information System
GPS- Global Positioning System
HEC-RAS - Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System
HSG - Hydrologic Soil Group
HOA - Home Owners Association
LB-Pounds
LF - linear foot
LOMR - Letter of Map Revision
LUESA - Land Use & Environmental Services Agency
mm-Millimeter
LWD - Large Woody Debris
MBI- Mitigation Banking Instrument
MBRT- Mitigation Banking Review Team
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 31
46

MMG -Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines (City of Charlotte)
MHAP - Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol
MPN per 100 ml - Most Probable Number per 100 milliliter
MWR - Meander Width Ratio
N - Nitrogen
NBS- Near Bank Stress
NCD- Natural Channel Design
NC DENR- North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC DLR - North Carolina Division of Land Resources
NC DWQ - North Carolina Division of Water Quality
NC NHP - North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NC WRC - North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NCSU - North Carolina State University
NRCS- National Resources Conservation Service
NWI- National Wetlands Inventory
P - Phosphorus
PerMITS- Permit and Mitigation Information Tracking System
Qbkf- Bankfull Discharge
RCP - Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RTE - Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species
SECP- Sediment & Erosion Control Plan
SF- Square Feet
SHPO - State Historical Preservation Office
SQ MI - square mile
SR - Stream Restoration
SSMP - Site Specific Mitigation Plan
SW - Stormwater
SWIM- Surface Water Improvement & Management
TMDL - total maximum daily limit
USACE - US Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS - United States Geologic Survey
Velbkf - Bankfull Velocity
Wbkf- Bankfull Width
WARSSS - Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply
WRP - watershed restoration plan
WQI - Water Quality Index
WQV- Water Quality Volume
WWMF - Wastewater Management Facility
WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant
McKim & Creed, PA July, 2009 32