20050473 Ver 1_Complete File_20050315

W A T F9QG
DUG
Mr. Darin Peine
City of Charlotte, Stormwater Services
600 East Fourth St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject: Cindy Lane Extension
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Q 9%
MPV?RZ?p?,
NOLA, N
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Peine:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
May 9, 2005
DWQ# 05-0473
Mecklenburg County
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to fill 0.33
acre of wetland and impact 170 linear ft of unnamed stream to Irwin Creek as part of the subject road
construction project in Mecklenburg County, as described in your application received by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) on March 15, 2005. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this project is
covered by Water Quality General Certification Number 3494, which can be viewed on our web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The General Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number
14 once it is issued to you by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please note that you should get any other
federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited
to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certification will expire when the associated 404 permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification. This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described
in your application. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be required to send
us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the
Certification and approval letter; and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions.
In addition to the requirements of the certification, you must also comply with the following conditions:
1. The planting of native vegetation and other soft streambank stabilization techniques must be used where
practicable instead of riprap or other bank hardening methods. If riprap is necessary, it shall not be placed in
the streambed, unless approved by the DWQ.
2. The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing upon completion of the onsite mitigation plan.
3. Stormwater discharge structures shall be constructed in a manner such that the potential receiving streams
(of the discharge) will not be impacted due to sediment accumulations, scouring or erosion of the stream
banks.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters. If placement of sediment
and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural
grade restored within two months of the date the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
No Carolina
?titrally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc us FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportun4lAffinnative Action Employer- 50% Recyded110% Post Consumer Paper
5. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality. Please send photographs of
the upstream and downstream sides of each culvert site to document correct installation, along with the
Certificate of Completion form.
6. Continuing Compliance. The City of Charlotte (the applicant) shall conduct all activities in a manner so as not
to contravene any state water quality standard (including any requirements for compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of state and federal law. If DWQ
determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or
achieved use) or that state or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure
compliance, DWQ may reevaluate and modify this certification to include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before
codifying the certification, DWQ shall notify the applicant and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public
notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503, and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to the applicant in writing, shall be
provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issued pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless
you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-
1699 or Ms. Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
Sincerely,
,U• /il-?i
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands Unit
Land Quality, MRO
Greg Antemann
Central Files
Triage Check List
Date: 3i16i05 Project Name: City of Charlotte Cindy Lane EYt
DWQ#: 05-0473
County: Mecklenburg
., i
To: Alan Johnson, Mooresville Regional Office _
60-day Processing Time: 3/15/05 to 5/13/05
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern

Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!

t

°% y? UO
i [_CEIVE-D Q s C_?
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 14
Cindy Lane Extension
t Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2003-0477
March 11, 2005
Prepared For:
The City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
[phone]
Prepared By:
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
[phone]
j .a '' +./
ti ?? ' I' 1iI I'
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230 • Charlotte, NC 28217 • [phone] Office • [phone] Fax
Nrtiriv.carolinaNvetlandscrviccs.com
Carolina Weiland Service$- ?
c?
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
Table of Contents
H Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2
Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 3
Current Land Use... ..... . 3
................................................................
Jurisdictional Delineation .................................................. .
3
Agency Correspondence ......................................................................................................................... 5
Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 5
Protected Species ................................................................................................................................ 5
Purpose and Need for the Project ........................................................................................................... 5
Alternatives Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 6
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters ............................................................................................. 9
Compensatory Mitigation ....................................................................................................................... 9
List of Attachments
Attachment A - Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
Attachment A - Figure 2. NRCS Soil Survey
Attachment A - Figure 3. Original Impacts
Attachment A - Figure 4. Proposed Impacts Overview
Attachment A - Figure 5. Proposed Impacts
Attachment B - Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 14
Attachment C - Routine On-Site Data Forms
Attachment D - NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Attachment E - USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
Attachment F - Agency Correspondence
Attachment G - Figure 6. Proposed Mitigation Location
Attachment G - Figure 7. Typical Bioengineered Stream Bank
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
Executive Summary
The Cindy Lane Extension Project is located in Charlotte, North Carolina, approximately one mile
north of the Statesville Avenue - Interstate 85 (I-85) interchange
(Attachment A - Figures 1 and 2). The project corridor is approximately 0.6 mile extending from
the intersection of Statesville Avenue and Cindy Lane to the intersection of Lake Road and Nevin
Road (Attachment A - Figures 1 and 2). The City of Charlotte has retained Carolina Wetland
Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide permitting services for this project.
The results of the on-site field review conducted by CWS indicate that there are two jurisdictional
stream channels (Streams A and B), two non jurisdictional channels (Channels B and C), and one
jurisdictional wetland area (Wetland AA) located within the project corridor
(Attachment A - Figures 4 and 5). Jurisdictional areas have been field-verified by Mr. Tim Smith
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office on January 22 and March 26, 2003
(Action ID 200330684). Unavoidable impacts associated with this project total approximately 170
linear feet of Perennial Stream A and approximately 1/3 acre of Wetland AA. On behalf of The
City of Charlotte, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification with attachments in
accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 13, and pursuant to Nationwide Permit
No. 14 and Water Quality Certification No. 3404 (Attachment B).
2
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
Existing Conditions
The Cindy Lane Extension Project is located in Charlotte, North Carolina, approximately one mile
north of the Statesville Avenue - Interstate 85 (I-85) interchange (Figures 1 and 2 enclosed). The
project corridor is approximately 0.6 mile extending from the intersection of Statesville Avenue
and Cindy Lane to the intersection of Lake Road and Nevin Road (see Figures 1 and 2). The City
of Charlotte has retained Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide permitting services for
this project. An Agent Authorization Form is enclosed.
Current Land Use
The land use surrounding the project area consists of residential and forested areas. Dominant
vegetation within forested areas includes tulip poplar (Liriodendron adipifera), Chinese privet
(Ligustrtau siuense), sweet-um (Liquidambarstyraciua), red elm (Umus rubra), and red maple
(Ater rubrum).
Jurisdictional Delineation
On October 31, 2002, and October 20, 2003, CWS's Gregg Antemann, Isaac Hinson, and Ron
Johnson delineated 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.'- Jurisdictional areas were field-verified by Mr. Tim Smith
of the Asheville Field Office on January 22 and March 26, 2003 (Action ID 200330684). Routine
On-Site Data Forms representative of Wetland AA and adjacent upland areas are enclosed.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were classified according to recent North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ)3 and USACE guidance. NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms and USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets for on-site streams are enclosed.
There are two jurisdictional stream channels (Streams A and B), two non jurisdictional channels
(Channels B and C), and one jurisdictional wetland area (Wetland AA) located within the project
corridor (Figure 4). All on-site waters are tributary to Irwin Creek. Irwin Creek is within the
t "Jurisdictional waters of the U.S." includes essentially all surface waters such as: all navigable waters and their tributaries, all
interstate waters and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all impoundments of these waters.
2 Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
3 North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Method. Version 2.0. 1999.

[:I
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
Catawba River basin (HU# 03050101 and is rated "Class C Waters" by the NCDWQ. On-Site
jurisdictional areas are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Summarv of On-Site.furisdietional Areas
Jurisdictional Approximate Approximate NCDNNIQ USACE
Area Classifi
Classification Acreage (ac.) Length (11) Score Score
Stream A Perennial -- 1,800 if 34.5 57
Unimportant
Stream B 0.01 ac. 200 if 15 28
Intermittent
Wetland AA N/A 1.138 ac. -- N/A 26
Stream A generally flows south through the project corridor and is contiguous with Wetland AA
(Figure 4). This stream is Perennial and exhibits moderate sinuosity and recent alluvial
deposition. Channel substrate consists of coarse sand and Stream A has a four-foot average
ordinary high water width (SCP 1 enclosed). Stream A scored 34.5 out of a possible 71 points on
the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form and 57 out of a possible 100 on the USACE Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet.
Stream B generally flows south through an existing culvert, west of Statesville Avenue (Figure 4).
This stream is Unimportant Intermittent due to a lack of sinuosity and no groundwater discharge.
Channel substrate consists of coarse sand and gravel and Stream B has a two to three average
ordinary high water width (SCP2 enclosed). Stream B scored 15 out of a possible 71 points on the
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form and 28 out of 100 on the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet.
Non-Jurisdictional Channel C runs perpendicular to the project corridor, east of Perennial Stream
A (Figure 4). This channel was evaluated to be non jurisdictional based on lack of channel
substrate and groundwater discharge. This channel also lacks biological indicators and hydric soils
(SCP3 enclosed). Channel C scored 6.5 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form and a 26 out of a possible 100 on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheet.
4 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of Forth Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974.
4
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
Wetland AA is located near the center of the site and is approximately 1.133 acre in size
(Figure 4). This area is contiguous with Perennial Stream A, and is dominated by Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), red elm (Uhnus rubra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), tag alder
(Alms serridata), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicerajaponica) (DPI). Wetland AA also has low chroma soils (5Y 511) saturated in the upper
12 inches.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on May 14, 2004 to
determine if areas of architectural, historic, of archaeological significance are located within the
project area and that would be affected by the project. In a letter dated June 2, 2004 (enclosed), the
SHPO stated that they "are aware of no historic resources, which would be affected by the project"
(Attachment F).
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on
May 14, 2004 to determine if any federally-listed species or critical habitat were located within the
project area. In a letter dated May 25, 2004 (enclosed), the NCNHP stated that they "do not have
any records for rare species, high quality natural communities, or significant natural heritage areas
(SNHAs) at the site or within 2 kilometers of the project area (Attachment F).
Purpose and Need for the Project
The City of Charlotte proposes to extend Cindy Lane in order to improve traffic flow and
pedestrian access in this area. The goal of this project is to connect existing Cindy Lane from
Statesville Avenue to Nevin Road. Currently Cindy Lane ends at Statesville Avenue near a
proposed residential development.
5
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
Alternatives Analysis
The No-Build Alternative
Without the extension of Cindy Lane, Nevin Road would remain the single means of a convenient
east-west connection from Statesville Road to West Sugar Creek Road. The proposed construction
of Statesville Road would only allow for right in/right out access at Nevin Road with median
openings being provided at existing Cindy Lane and Hutchinson McDonald Road. Results of the
traffic analysis indicate that the anticipated growth in traffic would further deteriorate surrounding
arterial and intersection levels of service. A corresponding increase in accident types associated
with congestion may occur with this increase in traffic. For these reasons, the no-build alternative
is not recommended.
Alignment Alternatives
The projected traffic volumes show the need for a two-lane facility on new location with exclusive
left-turn lanes at the intersection of Statesville Road and Cindy Lane/Cindy Lane Extension. To
evaluate the impact of the new location, design criteria and a typical section for the roadway were
developed. The design criteria are based on current design standards for CDOT.
The project corridor, as previously determined by the 1994 Mecklenburg Union County
Thoroughfare Plan, extends east from the intersection of Statesville Road to the current
Nevin/Lake Road intersection. The existing right-of-way on Cindy Lane approaching Statesville
Road is 70 feet. A 35-foot dedicated right-of-way exists between the subdivision lots at Arvin
Village and the property owned by Grace Memorial Baptist Church. The desired typical section
will require a 70-foot right-of-way, varying up to 90 feet to accommodate exclusive turn lanes at
the Statesville Road intersection. To analyze impacts on adjacent properties, alignment options for
providing the new roadway within the established corridor were evaluated. Two viable'alternatives
for extending Cindy Lane were identified. Both alternates (Alternative Nos. 1 and 2) begin and
end at the same locations but vary horizontally within the project corridor.
6
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
Northern Alignment - Alternate 1
Alternate 1 proposes to extend Cindy Lane from the intersection of Statesville Road to the
intersection of Nevin/Lake Roads, utilizing the northern portion of the project corridor. The
advantages and disadvantages of Alternate 1 are listed below:
Advantages
o Utilizes right-of-way dedicated through the subdivision ordinance on the south side of
Arvin Village Subdivision.
O Minimizes impacts to the future site of Grace Memorial Baptist Church.
Disadvantages
• Requires construction easement on some properties in Arvin Village Subdivision.
Does not allow for a tree buffer between Arvin Village Subdivision and the proposed
roadway.
Southern Alignment- Alternate 2
Alternate 2 proposes to extend Cindy Lane from the intersection of Statesville Road to the
intersection of Nevin/Lake Roads, utilizing the southern portion of the project corridor.
Advantages and disadvantages of this alternate are outlined below:
Advantages
® Provides a tree buffer between Arvin Village Subdivision and the proposed roadway.
® Provides a better line of sight for traffic going through the intersection along Cindy Lane.
Disadvantages
o Requires more right-of-way, possibly resulting in a total take of the Grace Memorial
Baptist Church Property.
a Increase the skew angle of the existing intersection alignment.
a Does not fully utilize right-of-way dedicated through the subdivision ordinance.
7
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
Recommended Alternate
The recommended alternate should meet the goals of reducing congestion, enhance the surrounding
arterial connectivity and improve safety. Beyond achieving these established goals, evaluation of
alternates should consider construction cost as well as other impacts. Table 2 summarizes the
impacts of both alternatives.
Table 2 - Evaluation of Alternatives
Northern Southern
Alignment Alignment Comments
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Impacts to Environmentally Sensitive None None
Properties
Impacts to Overhead Utilities and No significant No significant
Utility Adjustments difference between difference between
alternatives. alternatives.
Maintenance of Traffic During No significant No significant
Construction difference between difference between
alternatives. alternatives.
Property Relocations 1 Residential. 1 Residential.
Mtemate 2 leaves future church
Impacts to Future Development Minor Severe site with a small useable remnant,
likely not conducive to future site
plans
Impacts to Natural and Cultural No significant No significant
Resources difference between difference between
alternatives. alternatives.
Impacts to Off-Site Drainage No significant No significant
Systems difference between difference between
alternatives. alternatives.
No significant No significant Alternate 2 will have a higher
Construction Cost difference between difference between right-of-way cost, due to a greater
alternatives. alternatives. right-of-way take on future
church site
The most significant difference between alternatives is the severe right-of-way impact the Southern
Alignment (Alternate 2) would have on the future site of Grace Memorial Baptist Church.
Planning for the church property includes a 400-seat sanctuary, multiple classroom buildings, an
activity center, and a daycare facility. The right-of-way take area required for the Southern
Alignment (Alternate 2) would most likely leave the property with too small a remnant for a

8
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
I
development of that size. Although both alternates are of equal length and roadway construction
cost would not differ significantly, Alternate 2 would have a higher right-of-way cost since it will
require more area to be purchased from Grace Memorial Baptist Church (possibly a total take).
I
Based on the impacts listed above and the similar project costs, the Northern Alignment
(Alternate 1) is the recommended alternate.
Impacts have been limited to Stream A and Wetland AA and are within the thresholds of
Nationwide Permit No. 14. Culverts have been designed to handle future 50-year storm events. A
larger culvert will also reduce flow velocities and reduce the potential for channelization through
the wetland area. Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize
disturbances to downstream waters.
Proposed Impacts to jurisdictional Waters
The original proposed design utilized a single 72" culvert and impacted 0.54 acre of Wetland AA and
approximately 280 linear feet of Perennial Stream A (Attachment A - Figure 3). The revised design
proposes to impact approximately 170 linear feet of Perennial Stream A. Impacts will result from the
installation of 170 if of 7'x7' reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) with rip rap outlet protection
(Attachment A - Figures 4 and 5). This culvert is designed to handle a 50-year storm event. An
additional culvert has been added to this crossing to maintain the hydrology of Wetland AA. The
crossing will also result in the filling of approximately 0.33 acre of Wetland AA. The roadway has
been designed according to City standards that determine horizontal and vertical alignments. The
proposed fill has been minimized to the maximum extent practical. In order to provide safe pedestrian
access to the proposed subdivision, sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the street. This design is
also in accordance with Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) clear zone requirements.
On behalf of The City of Charlotte, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification with
attachments in accordance with the written notification requirements of Nationwide Permit No. 14
and Water Quality Certification No. 3404.
Compensatory Mitigation
The City of Charlotte is proposing stream enhancement to compensate for unavoidable project
impacts. To mitigate for activities within Perennial Stream A, The City of Charlotte is proposing to
9
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Application Project No. 2003-0477
stabilize portions of the channel downstream of the proposed culvert. The proposed stream
enhancement includes approximately 630 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Irwin Creek
(Attachment G - Figure 6). Stabilization activities will include the use of bioengineering techniques
in the form of live staking, bank regrading and stabilization with coconut fiber matting. Live stakes
will be selected from native plant species and will be planted on 4 foot centers. A conceptual drawing
of a typical bioengineered stream bank has been included as Attaclunent G - Figure 7.
Impacts to on-site wetland areas will be mitigated through invasive plant management both upstream
and downstream of the proposed impact area (Attachment G - Figure 5). Invasive plant species will
be removed from approximately 0.92 acre of wetland area. Currently these areas are dominated by
Chinese privet. Chinese privet has a high degree of reproductive vigor and a wide range of
adaptability. It can dominate the shrub layer of an invaded habitat, thus altering species composition
and natural community structure by choking out native plant species. The proposed mitigation would
remove and replace invasive plants growing within Wetland AA with native hardwood species. Table
2 is a list of proposed native riparian tree and shrub species to be installed within the enhanced
wetland area. Plants will be planted on 6-foot centers.
Tahle 3. List of Native Plant Snecies
Scientific Name Common Name
Querns nigra water oak
Ouercus phellos willow oak
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar
Acer rubrum red maple
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum
Cornus amonnmt silky dogwood
Salix nigra black willow
Salix sericea silky willow
Poptthts deltoides cottonwood
Sambucus canadensis elderberry
Platanus occidentalis sycamore
Plants will be installed in the Fall of 2006 and will be monitored for a five year period to ensure
adequate survival rates. The project will be deemed a success if a survival rate of 320 woody stems
10
Cindy Lane Extension March 11, 2005
Nationwide Permit No. 14 Anolication Project No. 2003-0477
per acre is achieved. If adequate numbers are not present, replanting will occur until this goal is met.
C`VS will prepare monitoring reports one year post planting and every successive year until the five
year monitoring period is complete. These reports will be submitted to the USACE and NCDWQ on
an annual basis and will be generated during the early fall of each year. Representative photographs
of the site will be taken at permanent photographic monitoring stations established during the initial
planting and included with the reports.
II

`ntll ' .t,ic• ('st_n:j,!t' lla:'e;t ; I. _!!t)
Nunn lu•r 11 ,., ttl- \;, ?1jj?-;lun? } t,..,u 7!'tl 'ii tl '? I?I??Ir„• t? , .,.?a;( ?i,r. ' ? °?,o ???t `v ??. ?q0 ?1 ??,•?

0

131,[1 ??s???? r d. 1 .. 7',? Q19 14 1-5
_4' t .?I. ?i i i t try .: U \,. 1/ i ?'',?;1 •? tl yT:\ ? 'n`' I
._? `\ ``?f? //• KG's /? ? ?" f Rsn3on?1??\S'??? --, ) ?\}/ ?I1 ?-'?? /,/. -'I?/ /? ?• `?-?}_?
%?.WTI-(?' -¦'Jr Ilfeh'Scll ./^
S4tetvilleReid
?
f., t
\,?7 /f i?/. - ? r ? ,• 1 \ 1:?? -( L i' 1 q ? ? \ ? ? 1 ?```? /mil; .• s? p ? Qi ??,''a •.,`
\.1\; r, \ `- , ?I? _?'• ?-t ' ) _i? • P f `_??( l ( 1? Vij?i? ?•. ???/ s7: Air -l= r?,
,
lam' • 1.' / V r \l: "'7 `r `:t, , \'., i_` I /? I? l , \,i //?v?i 17",
'1` 1 ? ? cto? f r /q : fl ? ?' / 1 _\'d T • } \ .-a_?? ????.?` ,.? •.: '?1??llL? \\ f ?t;` i ? ?ll??, i\' K /. iJ?? ?+ ,?'! .
l l r? t l.? ` _vl kl %I 11 s'- StatesvillaAvenue\i? ' ?? < r o l a r ;,
1I ( .?_?_ Proposed Road Extension ,.
Ch •1?,.. i ?\ ?\??/1? °??`_•1 „i (? ?. ?5 f,.. I??? ?V',`?? 1
?1 r' Q --(?-'?'? •?? t .•,;?6t'f1?,76 •1•'?? .? { r q.or' r
Dill ics
" 3 i 3\ :in
y Lane ._?S- -i cif „) - • ?t 'p`? I" i 11 m j / 4r P `N
tatesvtlfe Ave
1I pp ll`` /? J/
1 i fl _ s D v!n\Vb?ahon 7G 1. ?- _ ??. r ` 1 ???.?
it G.
??. `"? ,???I ? l •?
J , r • Training Center. TDW2r
)?(/ t t_ _???'.? _ .{ I \. a r ?r r ?-v ?S. ?? 24 /
( \ _A _ J I I f x f ?R;1
/ 1 l?? // •? , ? _? _?.. ..? i- ,?? ? I'i ?h?°' ;"` ; ? e ?': ,.? :?? v'7: 1 4 .
??i \`' 1 z9z /? Nevin Road .' ±y vl(' /' if
+Y
J Interstate 85C \ 1?
waBe_?
of
'k 15 Pta ) / ?• 75J? !?? ?? ,? 1? r i/ U/ sl 8d
T-A 71
?El
Ilk ?Wilaon neiBhts Chl? ?? + \ 1? F? ?.. ?'? Q ` f ?yi O I?'
ri??`-r/ ,((? j?_? ? "'i????lwu?• A.- ? r' V.rf ?'? li ? i--? /r???, ? ?'._??? ??
tea, "7 ?.? '? % .\ J nt ( • • ? \ -\? ? ©?
-09
` °?aCotlatquttlh .\/ \? ' 1 ?.\I?;
'if i3+°?:i'i%--•-/i p' ES`???w,l,f ?\J•i? U???//r?\???.; ?Y?\? `?,??%' ? f/ 1\\ ?.`.` ???o
?'- -f ---? '` tiYilllame ?-. ? ^.\ i , , . n !/dJlr1 l y1?5 1 /1' / ., ?• / .-
?oLLY
®?/f
c-. ?C .. ;• i-- \: ?, ..a.>. \ ? nr f = D U711'. , ;/,,,r,.l L' _ . -I ' j i ''?_ % X ? ??7 ?. /L ? N iR`r•r?? ?%`? `}?a,l ? ? !?. / ? d
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
Reference: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Denim Quadrangle, North Carolina, dated 1996. '
1
r'± Carolina Wetland Services Fibure 1. USGS Site Location Map
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230 Cindy Lane Extension
+?? I Charlotte North Carolina
! !• ' Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
CWS Project No. 2003-0477
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE
IF
I1
4

S H _t3 ? CeD2 --
/{I / CcD1 ` Daa
u EnB r. CeD2 \ 4?? v
CuD'{ 111
EnD ?
VaFt CrD2 IV ApB f
- paE p" Ce32 L
O 1n? CeD2` \ O kD c
NeQ -
,GfD2 VaU- - 1D C.DZ /r? t^
?S 4
J UL` c`9 +
I° pal- CeD2 i tv .l '.-r' oQ ^ ;., i
rCe82 (uBh f,?
C D2
I s Ct?
.. ` I,tl tf'r ?J2 ?1 (J 115 1 ? j'
IL'(11 -' I
33
' Hell rB2 EnB ..???? 1 ,Y?
VaB N o 1
i
.FnF3f HcU O_ Aa0 e'??? •..CuB:
?cV' ?.?0 C1 e ,.a ?.
IHeL; fem. _ t ?. ? ? t ..`^•.? j1

U
\\
J
/
HeI3
i
CeD2-}) ,?3
!
:
Za . '*
?cea2-
jj
s
B CUB
CUD I, C'62
CcD1
a1eB

•
' A
j ? t 16

7y
`
?
Cr•!t2
- CI 13- l
i VaE3
f
/•, ? t EnB

r
ry CuB'
G
?
r, C D2'
'
`
? Enf3 fi _ J? J?? • t Y?? Ja? _
f D Z
--
t
. JI Ce13Z
j-
iT
_.? J °?

/ •? HeB CeF72 ,? Or
l
.. LnU UL--? G¢? 0 En6 ?r r . 't CuQ Vtf) l?r.? r % (u6 ?j
•CeBZ f + -CeD2"-
? VOB 1 I r 4- Cc02• 1Jr ?'F
`2 CcD2 CeD2
Ce0 _ -
Ent, iW3 1nD f
` ?c a, -C r_ f nE , t=nD 11?F e``5 l „Ur f
UL: '; /?P CeD2 cf?Z CnB
_ --
UL
Lza C'13
S - Ur.--t y _ - ? tL' _ CeII2 + D2 . .?,
i CeB _e• - i ryt _ r Z d 4 ?e Cc?2
Urr_ Ce0? - VkE
?`L 4 1`Cu6 fi•' 9
CeBZ '- EnB C" F..
t t CeD2 E' J VaB
S CeBZ l1e6 `. 1?• Hell 1 Entl ?i
CeD2 ' ?. Ce82'
CuE4 / Ce02 UO MeD Uf, / o;
t'
114S 1? s? d EnQ ?F CuQ;'
CrD2' t n, En13, ! r S
) KkB:
?taF- . CuB rc .: / t1 :B e'+ (..I ,? ° Ur 31
C?o
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
Reference: Mecklenburg County Soil Survey, Sheet No. 4, dazed 1980 .
Carolina Wetland Services
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Figure 2. NRCS Soil Survey
Cindy Lane Extension
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2003-0477
I PRIEPARED BY
DA CHECKED BY I DA TF
/( / , I
i
0
0
N
U
CA A ? ry ?
q
U
M ?
W [3a
=Fa
?cnUw
°
oo
.E ,\ \
\
.
U `
C `\ • \\ ,
Q \
Q? e?
L
U
? O
No`
i
i
a
U CD
II
W I
uF] ?
A Q N
A ? I
gn.
a
Q
0 N
U
4.1
V) °
a
.9
4--
c-
Q) ?
CL N

W
s

N o .4 t- Gh

C
o
-
i••? c?
cd gv F•d C R C
?wUN
o
;t
z
O
U Z A v p
L' Q Z u

r? c?•,? ..r cU7 ?+
u `a cn
o°U fs+UU a
V °

C o,

t
s
s
s
s
s
s
I
NOTE: ON-SITE JURISDICTIONAL AREAS WERE DELID
CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES FROM OCTOBER 31-1
AREAS WERE SURVEYED USING A SUB-METER GPS U
VERIFIED BY MR. TIM SMITI I OF THE ASIIEVILLE FIEL
EAS ENT UNE
Unimportant Intermittent Stream A
Existing Crossing N
NAL STREAM CHANNEL
r ? TIONAL WETLAND AREA
WETLAND AREA
SCP2 '
Ni
CLASSIFICATION POINT
] T1ON AND DIRECTION
SCALE 1 " = 400'
j Carolina Wetland Services
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
REFERENCE: MECKLENBURG COUNTY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,
DATED 2002.
Figure 4. Proposed Impact Overview
Cindy Lane Extension
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Pro'cct No. 2003-0477
PREP D` DATE CIIECKED FDATP,

s
t
t
a
e
e
t
e
t
t
NOTE: ON-SITE JURISDICTIONAL AREAS WERE DELINEATED ?
CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES FROM OCTOBER 31-NOVEMBI
AREAS WERE SURVEYED USING A SUB-METER GPS UNIT. TIIE
VERIFIED BY MR. TIM SMITH OF THE ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICI
.7 ?r R
CS
PR,;P. 6' =r- WALK I I
P7'11P. 9'
R4i
AITIti? STRIP
PL
Err W ??
" i II
PLIHTIA STRIP
PROP. B'CrAr. W"
1? 7 I II
kyr, P",
II ? _
Lirax??'
C _i I I rf t .j3
I I I
LEGEND
AVOIDED STREAM CHANNEL
IMPACTED STREAM CHANNEL
® AVOIDED WETLAND AREA
® IMPACTED WETLAND AREA
I APPROXIMATE SCALE: I"=50'
II' II
III''' II
Carolina Wetland Services
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
REFERENCE: MECKLENBURG COUNTY LAND USE AND ENVIRONNIENiAL SERVICES,
DATED 2002.
Figure 5. Proposed Impacts
Cindy Lane Extension
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2003-0477:
PREPARED BY DATE CIIKED DATE
Il c.J (/ /J d C CG Z. t. .oY
® m ® ® ® m ® m = m ® = w
o ?
o o
t7l
y
r
r

IE?

7 3
e Q 1 Y i? %
f2R
.51 Tn?
i
ell
Li
II L 3
s- 7
Q rCf)+- \
C) -?
CD
Q
-7'00 '
x

O F
L,p
i j

I°
? ti m
y

o'
`?
?
d b o a ?
o
`< ,
?
o N A?
• ? ? r
o
? P•F
C `
S'
y ,
y
`OJ1 ? y F?
t o
• C3 ? F/
o a
p
,?
A ? ?
a cn
tN O ? ? ? ? N Cl] ?
N ?.

N CD
K 5 p CA
w

o ?
,
V
r
i"' 37+W

Q ?

I CD D ` `"?'

Q
fa+Q7

Q --
-
a
a W? ---- -----
-
I ---- - ----
a?>z
?So
?z
o C)
?'O
;94O
;4 t
G') 79 d
d
mc„?
Cl
N?jNl7
V Q
x
N
N
O

Cilld 1.<?nc N1111% 11. "?i!i??ra?li{t? i'.,i ,:;1 ?7•t i :71'i'tt; Pir?i?ait"?> ? ''? ??i?t?1»i??_ .t,?,i??f `<„ 1-: ? je??.?i '1i??.
Wachmenl B - Nationwide Permit Application i'ru-%.Ijalit to .1 :'Natiounvide
Per-110 ,No. 1.1

Ph,'?'i,? F N, i
REEVED
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
Nationwide Permit No. 14
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
® mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: The Citv of Charlotte. Contact: Mr. Darrin Peine
Mailing Address: 600 E. 4t" Street
Charlotte. North Carolina 28202
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: dpeine(a,ci.charlotte.ne.us
2. Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: 704-527-1177 Fax Number: 704-527-1133
E-mail Address: arena n carolinawetlandservices.com
Pagel of 3
III. Project Information
1. Name of project: Cindy Lane Extension
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A Linear Tract
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Charlotte take I-77 north to
exit 13 A (Interstate 85N) and merge onto I-85N and take the Statesville Avenue/Road exit.
Turn left onto Statesville Avenue/Statesville Road and continue for about '/2 mile. Turn left
onto Cindy Lane.
e 5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N35°17' 7.4' - W80°49'53"
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
land is comnrised of mature wooded areas.
7. Property size (acres): N/A Linear Tract
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Irwin Creek
9. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The City of Charlotte proposes to extend
Cindv Lane in order to improve traffic flow and nedestrian access in this area. The coal of
this project is to connect existing Cindy Lane from Statesville Avenue to Nevin Road.
Currently Cindy Lane ends at Statesville Avenue near a proposed residential development.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: A trackhoe and typical
excavation equipment will be used for this project.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The land use surrounding the project
area consists of residential and small wooded areas.
Paze 2 of 8
IV. Prior Project History
The proposed road alignment is located within an under-construction residential development.
V. Future Project Plans
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
1. Wetland Impacts

Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact*
of Im
Area pact
(acrIm Located within

100-year r
Flo0000- (dplai
Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)

Type of Wetland***
Wetland AA Fill 0.33 ac. No contiguous forested wetland

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://w-Nvw.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 1.6 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.33 acre
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
indicate on ma linear feet) Before Impact (please seci
Stream A piping 170 if Unnamed Tributary to 4' Perennial
Irwin Creek

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 170 linear feet
Page 3 of 8
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S. N/A
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
indicate on ma (acres) bay, ocean, etc.
N/A
1 * List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
1 4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A
Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Imnacts to on-site iurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Impacts have been limited to Stream A and Wetland AA and are within the
thresholds of Nationwide Permit No. 14. Culverts have been designed to handle future 50-year
storm events. A larger culvert will also reduce flow velocities and reduce the chance of
channelization through the wetland area. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be
used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Please see the Alternatives Anal
discussion on naue 6 of the text.
Page 4 of 8
?I
C?
VIII. Mitigation
The City of Charlotte is proposing enhancement activities for compensatory mitigation. To mitigate for
activities within Perennial Stream A, The City of Charlotte is proposing to stabilize portions of the
channel downstream of the proposed culvert. The proposed stream enhancement includes
approximately 630 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Irwin Creek (Attachment I - Figure 5).
Stabilization activities will include the use of bioengineering techniques in the form of live staking.
Live stakes will be selected from native plant species and will be planted on 4 foot centers. A
conceptual drawing of a typical bioengineered stream bank has been included as
Attachment I - Fi u re 6.
Impacts to on-site wetland areas will be mitigated through invasive plant management within on-site
wetlands both upstream and downstream of the proposed impact area (Attachment I - Figure 5).
Invasive plant species will be removed from approximately 0.92 acre of wetland area. Currently these
areas are dominated by Chinese privet. Chinese privet has a high degree of reproductive vigor and a
wide range of adaptability. It can dominate the shrub layer of an invaded habitat, thus altering species
composition and natural community structure by choking out native plant species. The proposed
mitigation would remove and replace invasive plants growing within Wetland AA with native hardwood
species. Table 2 is a list of proposed native riparian tree and shrub species to be installed within the
enhanced wetland area. Plants will be planted at random and on 6-foot centers. Plantings will occur in
the Fall of 2006 and will be monitored for a five year period to ensure adequate survival rates. The
project will be deemed a success if a survival rate of 320 woody stems per acre is achieved. If adequate
numbers are not present. replanting will occur until this goal is met. CWS will prepare monitoring
reports one year post planting and every successive year until the five year monitoring period is
complete. This report will be submitted to the USACE and NCDWQ on an annual basis. These reports
will be generated during the early fall of each year. Representative photographs of the site will be taken
at permanent photographic monitoring stations established during the initial planting and included with
the reports.
1. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/Nvrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 5 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federaUstate/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify: )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers. N/A
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Page 6 of 8
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Sources of nearby impervious cover include roads, driveways. and rooftops. This project will
not cause an increase in the impervious coverage of the project area.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No F?l
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Compensatory mitigation is scheduled to begin immediately following receipt of appropriate
Page 7 of 8
1 L'? nM1 Y° yL(J?.?1 J Qr t i n ?C. ?' l 1 0?
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Pap 3 of 8
'_1 tu11 .tltt ;z., ? i ' Iz{.I7+..1'!,)11 ;''tl • 1lRCt 'n 7 ?ra{,fiats tti { 7 t VU. ?
.1ar4?1, ? '. "'rl
- -00
?ttaclua?c»t (.' - ?-?,,???c? {_ r?-???c ??,?t?? ?1'?3•:?z.,
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Cindy Lane Extention Project Date: 10/20/03
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Storm Water Services County: Nfeeklenbili
Investigator(s): Gre(7f7 Antemann, LTH, RG.I, and KJK State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetlan
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP1
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Li?zustnun sinense sluub FAC 9.
2. Ulnnrs nibra tree FAC 10.
3. Liquidambarsttracillua tree FAC+ 11.
4. Alnus serrulata tree FACW 12.
5. Toxicodendron radicans vine FAC 13.
6. Lonicera japonica vine FAC- 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
4-300
Remarks:
More than 50% of dominant velgetation is FAC or Nvetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
- Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_X, 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):
X 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.) ~l, FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland hvdrolo,-,,v indicators are p resent.
Routine On-Site Fcrms Paye I Of 2
I
11/11/2C04
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cecil sandy clav loans, 8-15%, eroded Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Tv pic llapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5" B IOYR 4/2 7.5YR 5/6 fey sil clay
prominent
5-12 B 5Y 511 N/A N/A sandy 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:
flvdric soil indicators are p resent.
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 jurisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine Cn-Site Forms
Pa-e2 of 2
11/11/2004
I
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Cindy Lane Extention Project Date: Ol /20/03
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Stormwater Development County: NIecklenbilir?
Investigator(s): Gre22 Antemann, IJH, RG.I, and K.IK State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP2
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies
1. Liriodendron tulipilcra Stratum
tree In icator
FACU Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. Lonicera japonica vine FAC- 10.
3. Toxidodendron radicans vine FAC 11.
4. Lizusttunt sinense shrub FAC 12.
5. Ulnnts rubra tree FAC 13.
6. Vitis rotundilalia vine - 14.
7. Acer ruhruin tree FAC 15.
8. Liquidambarstrracillua tree FAC+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
71%
Remarks:
Vlore than 50"lo of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
- Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs
- Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water %larks
_ 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: NN/A (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12" (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland hvdrolog y indicators are absent.
Rcutine Cn-Site =crms Paie 1 of 2 11/11/2C04
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cecil sandv clav loans. 4-15%, eroded Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Tv nic lianludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2" I OYR 313 N/A N/A silt loam
2-3" B 75YR 4/6 N/A N/A sand, loam
3-12" B l OYR 4/4 N/A N/A sandy 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:
Hvdric soil indicators arc absent.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle;
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes MN, (CirNN.
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes Remarks:
Approved by HCUSACE 2192
Routine Cn-Site Forms Pale 2 of-') 11111/2004
i ,??i-, i ul? ' ='1 rifaa 1LItc:1 ? I. I);+-:
1 11i7-?. ",i7 1'1 11-1;i".1)Ifill !f.ll II:1111 S11 I '.. 7l;#),I ?On _71 ;11. 7 ! _ _. _..
I
I?

t
?it.i??i? iae?it l) - ;'CIM" Clas,- ifiv oiml form,
NCDNVQ Stream Classification Form SCPI - Perennial Stream A
Project Name: Cindy Lane Extension River Basin: Catawba River County: Mecklenbur'., Evaluator(s): GCA and IIH
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: Invin Creek Signature(s):
Date: 10/31,02 USGS QUAD: Detita, NC Longitude: W801 49' 53" Latitude: N35° 17' 7"
LocationiDirections: From Charlotte, travel nonh On Interstate 35 (1-85) to Exit 39 (Statesville Avenue). Turn left onto Statesville Avenue and travel
for approximately 1/2 mile to Cindv Lane and turn left.
'PLEASE NOTE: Ifecaluamr and landonwer agree dtut theJeature is a mein-made ditch, their use rfthisfonn is nut necessary. Also, if in the beet prrrfessiurml judgement r fthe evaluator, the
feature is u man-made ditch wed not a modified natural streau -this rating system should not be used*
Primarv Field In(I icators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorpholn_-y Absent Weak Moderate Strnnt
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 F? 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strcambcd
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 l 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 ?l 2 3
1?fs The_ChInnel Sinuous? 0 I N 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
If.llvdrolo_y :%bsent Weak Moderate Stronr,
1) Is Tltere A Groundwater
Fl ow: Discham-c Present' 0 I © 3
PRLIL1RY11YDROLOGYLVDICATOR POUTS. 2
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambe(P 2 1 0
? Are Rooted Plants Present fn Strcambcd° ? I 0
3 Is Pori thvmn Prescnt^ J I 3
T Are Bivahes Prescm? 1 2 3
PRI3LlRYBIOLOGYLVDLC ITORPOINTS: 5
Secondary Field Indicators: (CircleOne,VluuberPc'rLine)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drninace Wav'1 0 0.5 1
SECO:VD:1 R I' GEO.IIORPIIOL OG I' LN'D I CI TOR POLVTS: 1.5
11.lhdrolo_v lbsent Weak Moderate Strnn,
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leatliner
iment On PI
l) Is Water In Channel And - d8 Hrs. Since 0 0.5 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*,VOTE: 11'Ditch 111&C,71-1 1/1 ;1) Abore Skin This Slen.lad "5 Hvlmv')
5) Is There Water In Charnel During Dry 0 0.5 ?l 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Ilvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)'. I'es4FA \b= 0
SECONDARY 11 YDROLOGY LVDIC. I TOR POLVTS: 6
I) Are Fish Prescnt'. •i 0,5 . 1 • 1 ,
2 Are Amphibians Present? 0.5 I l.1-
3) Arc A uaticTurtles Present'? 0,5 1 1.5
J Are Cn tish Prescnt? 0.5 I I's
5) Are Macrobenthos Prescnt? 0 0,5
?1 1 5
6) Are Iron Ocidizin -, Bacteria, Fun *us Present'? 0.5 1 15
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? uN 0 5 1 1.5
3) Are Wetland Plants In Streantbed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW ]lastly FAC Mostly FACU Mustly UPL
("'NOTE. 117otal.lbsence Q1':111 Plants Lt So camded 3 1 0.75 0.5 0 0
.-Is A'oted . I bone Skin This Sten UNLE.KY S l V Prescnt ).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY LVDI C-I TOR MINIS: 1
TOT.I L 1'OLVT.4 (Priman, +Secondary)= 34.5 (1f Greater Than Or Equal To 1 Q Points The Streant Is. 11 Least Intermittent)
9) Is A Continuous Bed 8c Bank Present'? 0 I 3
(*:VOTE IfRed C Bank Causcd By Ditchine.Ind WITHOUT Sinnositi, Then Score= 0*)
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Toro Man IndlOr In Field) Present.? Yes- No=O
1'RLIGIIt I' GL• 0.1101U'IIOLOG I' INDI C I TOR POLVTS: 13
u
NCDWO Streatn Classification Form SCP2- Unimportant Intermittent Stream B
Project Name: Cindy Lame Extension . River Basin: Catawha County: %legMenhura Evaluatogs): KJK, RGJ
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Strcatn: Invin Creek Simaturc(s):
Date. 10/20/2003 USGS QUAD: Derita Longitude: W40^-t0•53" Latitude: N35°17' 7.4-
Location/ Directions: From Charlotte take 1-77 north to exit 13 A (Interstate 35N) and merge onto 1-85N and take the Statesville AvenuvRoad exit. Turn
left onto Statesville Avenue.,Statesville Road and continue tar about 1. mile. Turn left onto Cindv Lane.
-PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landtwner agree that Mefeature is a nutn-made Mitch, then use (J this form is not neceaavy..llso. if in the best prgr mional judgement of flit evaluator, the feature is a
mart-trade ditch cord not a urudijfed natural strewn-iris rating s)stent should ,at be used'
Primarv Field Indicators: (Circle One,Numberper Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain's
0
?I 2
3
3 Are Natural Levices Present? 1 2 3
d) Is The Channel Sinuous? I 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplein Present'?
0
2
3
6) Is The Chamtcl Braided? q I 2 1
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? I 1 a 3
r 3) Is Tltere A Bankfull Bench Present? I 1 n 3
11.Ilydrolo2 Ahscnt Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is Thcre A Groundwater
FlowtDisc haree Present? Il I ? 3 _
PRLIL 1 RY HYDROLOGY LNDIC, I TOR POINTS: 0
111. ]3iology Al"ent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Arc Fibmus Rnots Present ht Strcamhcd? (? ' 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streamhed? I 0
PRIMARY 1310LOGI' LVDIC I TOR POLVTS: 5
Secondary Field In(icators: (Circle OneXtimber Per Linc)
3) Does Topo.raphy Indicate A
SECOND,1 R I' GEO.YIORP110LOGY IJ"D ICI TOR POINTS. 3
11.lhdrolog Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is TNs Year's (Or Last's) Leatlitter
TOT. I1_ POLVD; (Primar), ? Secnndari')= 15 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is, It Least Intermittent)
3) Are Weiland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(*,NOTE: /j Total Absence Of. Ill Plants In Streambed 2 ?i 0.75 0.5 0 0
As Vwed . i bot e Skip This Step UNLESS S { V Presen t° ).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY LVDIC, l TOR POINTS: I
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present'. 0 1 3
(*:NOTr_: it Red & Bank Caused Rv Dirchiw?, Inci WITHOUT Sinuosity Theft Score=0 •)
10) Is A 2"a Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Mnp And/Or In Field) Present? Yes-1 Vn= ?
PRLUARYGEO.NORPIIOLOGYLVDIC 1TOR POINTS: 4
Last Known Rain? ONOTE: It Ditch Indicated lit -'J.lbot e Skip This Sterf.lnd ?S Below=)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0.5 I 1.5
Conditions Or In Grnwing Season)'
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Readout)? Yes=LS V'n=
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY LVDIC.I TOR POINTS: 2
NCDWO Stream Classification Form SCP3 - Non-Jurisdictional Channel C
Project Name: Cindy Lane Extension River Basin: Catawba County: iMecklenburP Evaluator(s): KJK, RGJ
DWQ Project.Number: Nearest Named Stream: Irwin Creek Sipaturc(s):
Date: 10/_0/2003 USGS QUAD: Derita Longitude: W40°49'53" Latitude: N35°17' 7.4"
LocatiorvDirections: From Charlotte take 1-77 notch to exit 13 A (Interstate 85N) and merge onto 1-45N and take the Statesville Avcnue/Road exit. Turn
left onto Statesville Avenue/Statesville Road and continue lbr about !% mile. Turn ]eft onto Cindy Lane.
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator acrd lattdonvter tVree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of ihis form is nut necessary. Also, if in the best professianal jurl;,etaent f y'llie evaluator, the feature is a
mmn-arade ditch and not a modified natural stream-this ratingqsystem should not be used-
Primarv Field Indicators: (Circle One;VuniberperLine)
1. Geornornholo_y Absent Weak Moderate Strong
I) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? © 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different Fmm Surroundimj Terrain? 1 2 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? I 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 1 2 3
® 5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
It. Ilvdrolmw Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/ Disc har,e Present? © 1 2 3
PRIMARY1ftDROLOGYLVDICATOR POINTS: 0
1'R1,1L1RYR10LOGYIN'DICATOR POINTS. 3
Secondarv Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate .A
Natural Dminaee %Vav? 0 0.. 1 15
SECOiV D,1 RY GE O,IIORI'IIOL OGY I,VDIC 17'OR POINTS: 0.5
It. 11 tdrolo_y :Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leatlitter
4) Is Water In Channel And - 431Irs. Since M OS I 1.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry I 0.5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Ileadcut)" 1es=1.5 Va= I
SECONDARY IIYDROLOGI'LVDIC.1 TOR POINTS. 0.5
1)yAre Fish Present' t? 0.5 l t 1.5?
2 Are Amphibians Present? 0.5 1 1.5
3 Are A uaticTurtles Present? 0.5 1 1.5
4 Are Cmvfisli Present? 0.5 1 1.5
Are Macrobcnthos Present? M 1 L5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bactcria Fungus Present'? 0.5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? e 0.5 1 1.5
3) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly 013L Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(*.NOTE. I/ Total.-1 bsence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 0.75 0© 0 0
.-ls Nrted Abore Skip This Step UNLESSS.4V Present').
SECO;VDAI? 1' BIOLOGY INDIC.1 TOR POIGVTS: OS
TOTAL L POINTS (Prinutr), + Sccondary)= 6.5 ff Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream 1.5. ItLeast Intermittent)
( NOTF:If13ed & Bank Caused Hv Ditchnrz.lnd IVITIIOUTSinuosih• Then Score=O*)
10) Is A 2"' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Man . ind/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=-[(
PIUMARYGEOMORI'IIOLOGYL-VDICITOR POINTS: 2
( ?nsl?, ' ssu+ i.tt?atiin? 1L•u _?!s i _!!!l_?
\11a .'adiimit I'. USAC4,
........ ......_
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID#
DWQ#
1 1 t STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT NVOR SLEET t ?
SC111 - Perennial Stream A
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/20/3003 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00 PM
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributarv of Irwin Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 150 acres S. Stream Order: second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: Approximately 1,300 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte take I-77 north to exit 13 A (Interstate
85N) and merle onto I-85N and take the Statesville Avenue/Road exit. Turn left onto Statesville Avenue/Statesville Road and
continue for about'/ mile. Turn left onto Cindv Lane.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35°17' 7.4" W80°49'53"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: Rain within 48 hours
a" 15. Site conditions at time of visit: 60' and Sunnv
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: 0.60 acre
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map`? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey'? (?9 NO
30. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 50 % Resideptial Commercial Industrial _°.'o Agricultural
50 % Forested ','o Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 4' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 24%) X Gentle (2 to 4'Xo) Moderate (4 to 101)5) -Steep (>101/o)
24. Charmel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Total Score (from reverse): 57 Continents: Aauatic worms and dra2ont1y larvae were sampled during the Field
investigation.
Evaluator's Signature Date !2A-?
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environAiental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Arnnv Corps of Engineers in order tootnake a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STRE-AM QUALITY ASSE:SSN ENT -V%flIXSIEET
SCP1- Perennial Stream A
j ECORi:,GIO ' POli'1
CHARACTERISTICS i 1AINGE Si:`'?J
i:

1 I Coastal Piedmont .
..
Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream I

I (no flow or saturation = 0; stronu flow = max points) I 0 - c I 0 - 4 1 0 5 3
f Evidence of past human alteration

(extensive alteration = 0. no alteration = matt points) 0- 6 0- 5 0- 4
Riparian zone

(no buffer= 0: contiauous, wide butTcr= max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive discharges = 0: no discharges max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
Groundwater discharge

(no discharge = 0: springs, seeps. %vetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
v I
6
P
resence of adjacent floodplain
I
s
i- (no tloodplain = 0: extensive tloodplain = max points) 0 - 4 0'- 1 0 - 2 3
.- Entrenchment / tloodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding = max points) 0_ 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
2
(no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0 6 0-4 0-
_ 4

9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0. natural meander = max points) Q - - 4 0 -' 3

10 Sedmlent input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

1 l Size s diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine, homogenous = 0' large, diverse sizes= max points) NA 0-4 0-5 1

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
y- (deeply incised= 0; stable bed &- banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
13 Presence of major bank failures

(severe erosion = 0. no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 1 0-a 2

14 Root depth and density on. banks
0
3

(no visible roots = O dense roots throughout = max points) - 0-4 0-5 2

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production

(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

i_ (no riffles/ripples or pools= 0, ,veil-developed = max points) 0 -' 0-5 0-6 3
-? 17 habitat complexity
0
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent. varied. habitats = max points) - 6 0 - 6 0-6 3
13 Canopy coverage over streantbed
0-5
0-5
0
5
3
(no shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy= max points)
-

19 Ouosiratc cutueaaeaness
v`:r
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure = max) I

0 r Presence of stream invertebrates
i-
2
(no evidence = 0. common, numerous types = max points)
0 - 4
0-5
0-5,

3
21 Presence of amphibians

^. _
(no evidence = 0; common. numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-4
0 4
0
j ?? I
` Presence of fish
0-4 I
0-4
0-4
0
M
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous types = max points)
I
r Evidence of wildlife use

(
_ f
(no evidence- = 0: abundant evidence = mar points) 0-6 0- 5 0-5 1
i
Total Points Possible 1
100 j
100
100
100
TOTAL SCi3R-1E-- (also enter on first pa?ej 57
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
2
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AIDY DWQ Y
. STREAI M QUALITY SSESSI MENT Wfl SEEET
SCF2 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream I3 a ' .-
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/20/2003 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:00 PIT
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributarv of Irwin Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 5 acres S. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: Approximately 200 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte take I-77 north to exit 13 A (Interstate
S5N) and meree onto I-85N and take the Statesville A,, mue/Road exit. Turn left onto Statesville Avenue/Statesville Road and
continue for about 1/, mile. Turn left onto Cindy Lane.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35°17' 7.4" W80°49'53"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: 80°F and Sunnv
15. Site conditions at time of visit: No rain within 48 hours.
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 (5 If yes, estimate the water surface area: N/A
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 °o Residential 20 % Commercial 450o Industrial 1,/o Agricultural
1 15 Forested % Cleared / Logged °% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 2-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 210) `C Gentle (2 to 4'%) Moderate (4 to 10`;/o) -Steep (>100/,)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straitilit Y Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Total Score (from reverse): 28 Comments:
?
Z_%?
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environnuntal professionals in
gatlterins 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.
t
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORXSHEE'T
SCP2 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream B

CHARACTERISTICS ECOEGIO POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont -moulltanl
1 Presence of flow / persistent, pools in stream
(no flow or saturations=0; strong flow =max. points) 0- 5 0- t 0 J 0
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensivealte:ration = 0; no alteration = max points)
0-6
I 0 5'
0-5
0

' Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0: contiguous. wide buffer = max points)
6
0-4
0 `
0
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) I 0 - 0 - f 0 - 2
..: Groundwater dischar-e
(no discharge = 0: springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. _ max points) 0 -' i 0 - f 0 - 1 1

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no tlcodplain 0; extensive floodplain = max points) - 1 0 - 0--2, 0
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0 - 0 - f 0 -' 1

g Presence of adjacent wetlands
1

I
(no wetlands = 0; large. adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-l 0-2 0
y Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0: natural meander = max points) 0 - 0-4 0-3 2
10 Sediment input
(extensive. deposition= 0; little orno sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0 f 2
F 1 Size & diversity'of channel bed substrate
(fine, homogenous = 0, lane,-diverse sizes = max points) N'v 0 - 0 - 5 2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
? 1` (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & bank = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-5
2

1' Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
1 4 Root depth and density on banks
'
(no visible roots= 0: dense roots tll oulhout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5
- 2
to 15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 - l 0-5 q
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0: well-developed = max points) 0 -' 0 - 0-6 1
17 Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0: frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
i 18 Canopy coverage over streanlbed
0
5

.;
(no shading ve,zetation = 0: continuous canopy = ma: points) - 0-5 0-5 2
19 Substrate embeddedness -

(c1
egy°plv embedded = 0: loose structure = max) i
.

`? 0 -
70-4
3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous types ='max points)
0-q
0-d
0-5
0
i-
?„ I Presence of amphibians
T
0 - -1

0 -

0 -

0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
??
?` Presence of fish
(no evidence =0; common, numerous types ?=max points) - O I - 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence= 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0 - s 0
Total Points Possible too 100. too 100
TOTAL SLOP (also enter on first page) 23

These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
_.._-_. .- -- -- -.....
STREAM QUALITY ASSESS1NIENT WORlKSEEET
SCP3 - Non-Jurisdictional Channel B
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/20/2003 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:30 PSI
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary of Invin Creek. 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: <I acre S. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: Approximately 150 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte take I-77 north to exit 13 A (Interstate
85N) and merle onto I-85N and take the Statesville Avenue.,Road exit. Turn left onto Statesville avenue/Statesville Road and
continue for about 'h mile. Turn left onto Cindy Lane.
r 12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35°17' 7.4" W80°49'53"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: 80°F and Sunnv
15. Site conditions at time of visit: No rain within 48 hours.
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 (?D If yes, estimate the water surface area: N/A
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 `;% Residential 20 °'o Commercial 45°0 Industrial °o Auricultural
1 % Forested Cleared /Logged , o Other
21. Bankfull Width: 2' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): <1'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2°0) X Gentle (2 to 4°'0 ivioderate (4 to 10° ?)) -Steep (>10'//o)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Total Score (from reverse): 26 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 12, i
This channel evaluation form iarintended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Armv 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 NVORXISEEET
SCP3 - Non-Jurisdictional Channel B
1
C
i
AC
'
`
S T CS LCOREGIO POPN T RA TNGF S
Y
I_L9
d
i.l
a.1 CORE-
I Coastal 1 ?
1i U11tU)Rt
j _ fountain
f

l Presence of flow / persistent. pools in stream
-

(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0
5 0-4 0-5 0
2 Evidence of past human: alteration - -

(extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = max points) 0-6 0- 5-
T 0-5 2

J Riparian zone

I
0
- 6

0 - 1

I 0 -
5

2
i
(no buffer = 0; contiguous. wide buffer = max points)

q Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5
I 0-4 I 0-4 2
Groundwater discharge
.. 5
(no discharge = 0: springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = maw points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
Presence of adjacent floodplain
v b (no floodplam - 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0 - 1 0 -,4 0-2 1
7 Entrenchment / lloodplain access
0
5
,)
(dceply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) - 0-4 0- 2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 -2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adiacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)

lo Sediment input

0 -

0 - 1

0 - 1
E (e
xtensive deposition=- 0: little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate.

(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) 0-4 0-5 0

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 I 0-4 0-5 2
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0
5 0
5 2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) - -
11 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

(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4

1 b Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no rifflesiripples or pools = 0: well-developed = max points) 0 -' 0 - 5 0-6 0
-^ 17 Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 0

! (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats- max points)
M 1S j Canopy coverage over streambed I 0-5 0
5 0
5 2
(no shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = max points) - -

1 Substrate einbeddedness
N.1 °
0-4
0-4
0
(deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max)

0 Presence of stream invertebrates
? (no evidence = 0: common, numerous. types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
,)
- Presence of amphibians
0
- q
4
0

0 - 1

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

.. Presence of fish
- _1
0-4
0-4
0--1
0
M (no evidence = 0: common, numerous types = max points)

3 Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
0 - S
0 -
0
I (no evidence = 0: abundant evidence - max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100 too
TOTAL SCOPE (also enter oil first pale) 26
:: These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Qs U
i
CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
NC Divison of Water Quality 03/1 1/2005
Filing Fees projcct112003-0477 6 0,411 3
ingudf1D 'dM1 IdN30
South Trust New 1'roject#2003-0477
5ooz 5 i wN
?-1 ' au g "i, rfflj
11W
D
3958
475.00
P
475.00 j
O
n
T
rnly,
p?
C
0
CA
E'ipsh i.::ai? ;?..:r?tr,t??a li :r?'a i ;, ?!1'.?-
-.: ??(;?)il 'r, ? 111 x:`11 ?'?':111???1 ??'i l". )1;?17z :!{ l ?.1 ??:1'+1. ? _ 7 i ? .???? ,k_.?-, .'
??taiV?lll3iil? ?' -- _'1°?t°d34'? ?'!?l't ?";f31?#'~i?:'?t?_'t'
nV Y? ? ' O
•? R? ?,a
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
June 2, 2004
Gregory C. Antemann, P.W. S.
Principal Biologist
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, NC 28217
Re: Cindy Lane Extension, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER02-7907
Dear j\1r. Antemann:
Thank you for your letter of iMay 14, 2004, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by dle 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, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
p „? /1 A ??u
avid Brook

viii,Nv.hpo.dcr.statc.ne.us
Location 3faiiing Address Telephone/Fax
AD..WNISTRATION 507 N. 31ount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] *733-9653
RESTORATION 515 N. 31ount St, Raleigh, \C 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-:617 [phone].715-1301
SURVEY i PL.AINNL`G S15 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715-1501

North Carolina Department or'Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
May 25, 2004
lMr. Gregory C. Antemann, P.W.S
Carolina Wetland Services
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, NC 28217
Subject: Request for Records Search, Cindy Lane Extension, Charlotte, NC
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2003-0477
Dear Mr. Antemann:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural
s areas at the site nor within 2 kilometers of the project area.
Although our maps do not show records of natural heritage elements in the project area, this 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
<<t1vct,.nesparks.net/nlhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant natural
communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-
8700 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
l
Misty, . Franklin, Botanist
Natural Heritage Program
MAF/maf
Y
® One
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 Noi-thCarolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/ 'Vatulally
An Equai Cppor;.:niry /Aflrmc°,aia Aciicn ETplcycr- b0 % Racycled 110 `o Pczt Corsu.-.cr Pcpar

tt:$dualent G -- Pr1 po.,w ° Is'i I 1 '! i/ ilm`. i )

Invasive Plant Management
and Revegetation - O.:cre
Stream Bioenginee ing
6pproximately 63 If
Invasive Plant Management
and Revegetation - 0.52 acre
/Oi
., nn
LEGEND
STREAM BIOENGINEERING
INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT
APPROXIMATE SCALE: I"= 200'

Carolina Wetland Services
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
REFERENCE: MECKLENBURG COUNTY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.
DATED 2002.
Figure 6. Proposed Mitigaiton
Cindy Lane Extension
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Pro.'ect No. 2003-0477
FREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE
???((o?l ?j oa z (t .o,r
I \
M
-------------
? ??\. ?ir?3nun

-rop Dr «,:,•rflo
? ?"Jr4 Sr-,U,I fi,mi
Live Srp u,Jco
f?:O? e,:;?7AJT Fu,,rlrJe?
zzv Y?
Lim f;:.,awz,
ZV, O"DIP
0
Carolina Wetland Services Figure 7. Typical Bio-engineered Stream Bank
Cindy Lane Extension
5000 Nations Crossing Road, Suite 230
Charlotte, North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
CWS Project No. 2003-0477
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE
1?C? r /r /? / A (?? ?, L r 3 . f, • a
CAROLINA WETL?iNv.JL-rnrINC.
NC Divison of Water Quality
Filing Fees
I-outh Trust New
Project#2003-0477
03/11/2005
project#2003-0477 0--50473
MWM 1024MMMOIS OW SGWU.3M
" VnO ?43yvM -18N34
?OUZ ? i ?HW
3958
475.00
475.00
rv