20111111 Ver 1_401 Application_20111211

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info
20111111
1 Project Name I
Allenbrook Westridge Storm Water Capital Improvement Project CIP
2 Name of Applicant
Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Mr Jarrod Karl
3 Name of Consultant /Agent
HDR En meenng Inc of the Carolinas (Mr Eric Mularski
* Agent authorization needs to be attached
4 Related /Previous Action ID numbers
N/A
5 Site Address
6 Subdivision Name
Allenbrook Neighborhood
7 City
Charlotte
8 County
I Mecklenburg
9 Lat
N 35 26
Long
W 80 91
Decimal De rees Please
10 Quadrangle Name
Mountain Island Lake
11 Waterway
Unnamed Tributaries to Paw Creek Allenbrook Tributary and Westridge Tributary)
12 Watershed
Catawba HUC 03050101170)
13 Requested Action
tolLgama
RRWV nn-
Z Nationwide Permit #
3 & 27
DEC 2 2 2011
FIL
WATER QUA11T y
❑ General Permit OS MDSTORIWATERBRANOH
® Jurisdictional Verification Request
❑ Pre Application Request

b
20111111
December 21 2011
Ms Amanda Jones
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue Room 208
Asheville North Carolina 28801 5006
NC Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Road
Raleigh North Carolina 276991650
Re Allenbrook Westndge Storm Water Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
Jurisdictional Verification and Nationwide Permits (3 and 27) Request
Mecklenburg County North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern
HDR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas (HDR) on behalf of our client Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water
Services (CMSWS) is requesting a Jurisdictional Verification and authorization under a Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 3 (Maintenance) and a NWP 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration Establishment and Enhancement
Activities) for activities associated with the Allenbrook Westndge Storm Water Capital Improvement Project
(CIP) in Mecklenburg County (Figure 1 and Figure 2)
Proiect Description
The purpose of the Allenbrook Westndge CIP is to improve the performance of the existing neighborhood
storm drainage system upgrade the capacity of the three culvert crossings (Allenbrook Drive Lanewood
Place and Westndge Drive) and enhance aquatic habitat and water quality by restoring and enhancing
impaired stream channels on two unnamed tributaries (UT) to Paw Creek (Allenbrook Tributary and Westndge
Tributary)
CMSWS intends to conduct Rosgen based Priority II stream restoration activities on approximately 1270
linear feet (If) of Allenbrook Tributary Priority II restoration will consist of channel relocation bank grading and
stabilization floodplain bench excavation installation of in stream structures and riparian buffer
establishment These activities will be submitted for mitigation credits to the City of Charlotte s Mitigation Bank
Instrument (MBI) In addition stream enhancement activities are proposed on approximately 1850 If of
Allenbrook Tributary and approximately 1730 If of Westndge Tributary upstream of the restoration reach
totaling 3 580 If of enhancement Upstream stream enhancement activities will further benefit water quality in
this watershed A Site Specific Mitigation Plan (SSMP) has been submitted and approved by the Interagency
Review Team (IRT)
HDR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas 440 S Church Street Phone [phone]
Suite 1000 Fax [phone]
Charlotte NC 28202 1919 www hdrinc com

Jurisdictional Waters of the US
HDR performed a field assessment to document jurisdictional waters of the US within the Project Area The
area was examined applying the methodology described in the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987
Wetland Delineation Manual USACE Post Rapanos guidance the recent USACE Interim Regional
Supplement and the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) guidance Completed USACE forms DWQ forms
and representative photographs are attached No jurisdictional wetlands have been identified within the Project
Area Table 1 is summary of delineated features
Table 1 Delineated Features
Feature
Classification
USACE
Score
DWQ
Score
Delineated Length
I
Allenbrook Tributary
RPW with Perennial Flow
45
38
3200
Westrid a Tributary
RPW with Perennial Flow
42
31
1 750
Total
4,950
NWP 3 Impacts
Maintenance activities including culvert replacement and associated stabilization structures will result in
permanent fill impacts to jurisdictional waters The proposed storm water infrastructure has been designed in
accordance with the current Charlotte Mecklenburg storm drainage system design standards Three culvert
replacement locations each consisting of double reinforced box culverts (RCBC) will be staggered in
elevation to create a low flow culvert and a floodplain culvert These will be located entirely within the
footprint of the existing deteriorated structures In addition soil will be added to the bottom of the culverts to
create a more natural channel bottom Installing np rap aprons and adding stone to augment existing plunge
pools downstream of outfalls will help dissipate flows and protect the downstream channel Sediment and
erosion control devices will be installed and employed throughout the duration of the project Mitigation
requirements will be offset by the onsite stream restoration /enhancement activities Table 2 is a summary of
permanent stream impacts
HDR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas Page 2 of 5

I able 1 Permanent Stream Impacts
'Stream
Stream
Station
Type of
Proposed
Replaced
Stream
Impact
Impact D
S10 (P)
Impact
22 +37
(Sheet 15)
Length (111
ALLENBROOK
DRIVE
S1 (P)
Allenbrook
10 +96
Rip Rap Apron
37
Sheet 6
Tributary
10 +59
Stabilization
S2 (P)
Allenbrook
11 +86
Culvert
8 W x 4 H RCBC (East)
6 W x 6 H RCBC (West)
139 x 89
Arched CMP
15
(Sheet 6)
Tributary
10 +96
Replacement
901
751
LANEWOOD
PLACE
S3 (P)
Allenbrook
19 +91
Rip Rap Apron
21
(Sheet 7)
Tributary
19 +70
Stabilization
S4 (P)
Allenbrook
20 +66
Culvert
6 W x 5 H RCBC (North)
133 x 76
(Sheet 7)
Tributary
19 +91
Replacement
6 W x 7 H RCBC (South)
751
Arched CMP
601
15
WESTRIDGE
DRIVE
S5 (P)
Westridge
2 +04
Rip Rap Apron
20
Sheet 11
Tributary
1 +84
Stabilization
S6 (P) Westridge 2 +89
(Sheet 11) Tributary 2 +04
S7 (P) Westridge 5 +28
(Sheet 11 Tributary 4 +90
& 12)
S8 (P) Westridge 14 +08
(Sheet 13) Tributary 13 +75
S9 (P)
Westndge
17 +65
Sheet 14
Tributary
17 +40
S10 (P)
Westridge
22 +37
(Sheet 15)
Tributary
21 +82
Culvert 6 W x 3 H RCBC (South) 78 RCP
Replacement 6 W x 5 H RCBC (North) (80 If)
(85 If)
RANCH ROAD
Augment
Existing
Plunge Pool
Stabilization
WESTSTONE DRIVE
Augment
Existing
Plunge Pool
Stabilization
INTERURBAN AVENUE
Rip Rap
Stabilization
Augment
Existing
Plunge Pool
5
38
33
25
55
Stream Impacts I 264
NCR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas Page 3 of 5

Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
HDR reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) GIS database and found no known structures
or historic districts located within a mile of the Project Area Correspondence (dated January 7 2009) was sent
to the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requesting Information on cultural resources that may be
Impacted by the proposed project SHPO reviewed (ER 09 0043) the project and commented that no historic
resources would be affected (dated January 27 2009)
Federally Protected Species
HDR reviewed the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) protected species list and consulted the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) Elemental Occurrence GIS database for Mecklenburg County Suitable habitat for
Schweinitz s sunflower (Helianthus schwe►n►tzii) was present with in the Project Area A pedestrian survey was
conducted during its flowering season and no individuals were present FWS concurred with our findings in a
response dated November 22 2011 (FWS Log No 4 2 09 105)
The NHP commented that the only rare species located within a mile of the Project Area Is the long extirpated
population of the Federally Endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasm►gona decorata) from Paw Creek The
species was last noted in this creek (specific location not well documented) prior to 1918 (correspondence
dated January 12 2009)
We are hereby requesting a verification of delineated waters and authorization to construct under a NWP 3
and NWP 27 and Section 401 Water Quality Certifications (WQC) No 3687 and WQC No 3689 Enclosed
herein are
➢ Agent Authorization Form
➢ Pre Construction Notification (PCN) Form
➢ Project Vicinity (Figure 1)
➢ USGS Mountain Island Lake Quadrangle (Figure 2)
➢ Delineated Waters of the US (Figure 3)
➢ NRCS Soils (Figure 4)
➢ Construction Plans
➢ DWQ Stream Identification Forms
➢ USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms
➢ USACE Wetland Determination Data Form — Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
➢ Representative Photographs
➢ Agency Letters
Thank you In advance for your assistance If you have any questions or require additional information after
your review of the enclosed Information please contact Eric Mularskl at [phone] or
enc mularskifthdnnc com
HDR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas Page 4 of 5

Respectfully
Eric Mularskl PWS
Environmental Scientist
Cc Jarrod Karl Project Manager CMSWS
Jacklyn Bray Project Manager CMSWS
HDR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas Page 5 of 5

® 0
8 �
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
I Jarrod Karl representing Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services hereby certify that I have
authorized Eric Mularsk► representing HDR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas to act on my behalf
and take all actions necessary to the processing and issuance of the Nationwide Permits (3 and 27)
application associated with the Allenbrook Westridge Stormwater Improvement Project (CIP) located
in Mecklenburg County North Carolina
We hereby certify that the information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the best of
our knowledge
Jarrod Karl
Applicant s Name
Applicant s Signature
Date
Eric Mularski
Agents Name
Agent s Signature
12/21/2011
Date
HDR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas 440 S Church Street Phone [phone]
Suite 1000 Fax [phone]
Charlotte NC 28202 1919 www hdnnc corn

ot
\o� W A T 9
X1
T.
O 'C
20111111
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A Apphcant Information
I
1
Processing
1 a
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10'1*ermit
1 b
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 3 and 27 or General Permit (GP) number
1c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
[:1401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ® No
1f
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in lieu
fee program
❑ Yes
® No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC s twenty coastal counties If yes answer 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
Allenbrook Westndge Storm Water Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
2b
County
Mecklenburg
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Charlotte
2d
Subdivision name
2e
NCDOT only T I P or state
project no
3
Owner Information 19 L�-3 1-11� L!� U ky L9
nn
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
See attached
3b
Deed Book and Page No
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
WATERQUALITy
K4Q ,,,11 1WATER6RAN
3d
Street address
3e
City state zip
3f
Telephone no
3g
Fax no
3h
Email address
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
❑ Agent ® Other specify Municipality
4b
Name
Jarrod J Karl Mitigation Administrator
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS)
4d
Street address
600 East Fourth Street
4e
City state zip
Charlotte NC 28202
4f
Telephone no
704 - 432 -0966
4g
Fax no
704 336 -6586
4h
Email address
Ikarl @ci charlotte nc us
5
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Eric Mularski Environmental Scientist
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
HDR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas
5c
Street address
440 S Church Street Suite 100
5d
City state zip
Charlotte NC 28202 1919
5e
Telephone no
704 973 -6878
5f
Fax no
704 338 6760
5g
Email address
enc mularski @hdnnc com
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

B
Project Information and Prior Project History
1
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
See attached plans
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 35 26 Longitude 8091
(DD DDDDDD) ( DD DDDDDD)
1 c
Property size
130 neighborhood area) acres
2
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream river etc ) to
Unnamed Tributary to Paw Creek
proposed project
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
Paw Creek (Class C)
2c
River basin
Catawba (HUC 03050101170)
3
Project Description
3a
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
According to the land cover use classification adopted by North Carolina the Project Area and surrounding properties are
classfied as open space developed land low intensity developed land medium intensity developed land and high
intensity developed land These land uses are consistent with aerial imagery and recent onsite visits
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
No wetlands were observed during the onsite jurisdictional waters survey In addition the US Fish and Wildlife Services
(FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) did not identify wetlands in the Project Area
3c
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
Delineated streams included
3 200 linear feet (If) of (perennial) Allenbrook Tributary
1 750 If of (perennial) Westndge Tributary
3d
Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The purpose of the Allenbrook Westndge CIP is to improve the performance of the existing neighborhood storm drainage
system upgrade the capacity of the three culvert crossings (Allenbrook Drive Lanewood Place and Westndge Drive)
and enhance aquatic habitat and water quality by restoring and enhancing impaired stream channels on two unnamed
tributaries (UT) to Paw Creek (Allenbrook Tributary and Westridge Tributary)
3e
Describe the overall project in detail including the type of equipment to be used
The proposed CIP project intends to replace the existing deteriorated stormwater facilities and provide water quality
improvements by implementing stream restoration /enhancement activates on tributaries within the watershed Standard
excavation and earth moving equipment will be used during the construction Below is a summary of the proposed
improvements that will require authorization under the current Nationwide Permits
Approximately 1 265 If of Priority II stream restoration on Allenbrook Tributary from upstream of Allenbrook Drive to its
confluence with Paw Creek
— Approximately 1 850 If of stream enhancement activates on Allenbrook Tributary upstream of restoration site
— Approximately 1 730 If of stream enhancement actvites on Westndge Tributary upstream of restoration site
Replace an existing 139 x 89 arched corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with a double reinforced concrete box culvert
(RCBC) at Allenbrook Drive
— Replace an existing 133 x 76 arched CMP with a double RCBC at Lanewood Place
— Replace an existing 78 reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with a double RCBC at Westndge Drive
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past
Comments
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination what type
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made
4c
If yes who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company
Name (if known)
Other
4d
If yes list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
5
Project History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b
If yes explain in detail according to help file instructions
6
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b
If yes explain
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
la Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑ Wetlands ® Streams tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps 404 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404 other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P [IT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P [IT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g Total wetland impacts
2h Comments
3 Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number
(PER) or
(Corps 404 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non404
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Rip Rap Apron
Allenbrook
® PER
® Corps
15
37
(Stabilization)
Tributary
❑ INT
® DWQ
S2 ® P ❑ T
Culvert
Allenbrook
® PER
® Corps
15
15
Replacement (Fill)
Tributary
❑ INT
® DWQ
S3 ® P ❑ T
Rip Rap Apron
Allenbrook
® PER
® Corps
15
21
(Stabilization)
Tributary
❑ INT
® DWQ
S4 ®P ❑ T
Culvert
Allenbrook
® PER
® Corps
15
15
Replacement (Fill)
Tributary
❑ INT
® DWQ
S5 ® P ❑ T
Rip Rap Apron
Westridge
® PER
® Corps
6
20
(Stabilization)
Tributary
❑ INT
® DWQ
S6 ® P ❑ T
Culvert
Westndge
® PER
® Corps
6
5
Replacement (Fill)
Tributary
❑ INT
® DWQ
See Table
2 in cover
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
letter for
enitre
listing
31 Comments Upgrading and replacing three deteriorated culverts will result in approximately 35 If of permanent fill impacts
Rip rap aprons and augmenting lun a pools below the proposed replacement culverts and existing culverts will result in
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

approximately 229 If of permanent impacts
4 Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes ponds estuaries tributaries sounds the Atlantic Ocean or any other open water of
the U S then individually list all open water impacts below
4a
Open water
impact number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c
Type of impact
4d
Waterbody type
4e
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑ PEI T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 []PEI T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f Total open water impacts
4g Comments
5 Pond or Lake Construction
If Pond or lake construction proposed then complete the chart below
5a
Pond ID
number
5b
Proposed use or purpose
of pond
5c
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e
Upland
(acres)
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
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

6 Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer then complete the chart below If yes then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar Pamlico ❑ Other
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
131 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments
D Impact Justification and Mitigation
1 Avoidance and Minimization
la Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
The proposed stream restoration /enhancement activities are intended to improve water quality enhance instream aquatic
habitat and establish a native riparian buffer Stream banks will be sloped back and natural materials will be utilized to provide
bank stabilization and to create instream structures
The proposed storm water infrastructure has been designed according to the Charlotte Mecklenburg storm drainage system
criteria and standards Replacement double RCBCs have been designed to maintain low flow conditions and will be
constructed entirely within the footprint of the existing deteriorated structures These structures have been designed to the
shortest possible extent without compromising the intent of the proposed project
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
The Erosion Control Plan adheres to the local and state requirements and control devices will be employed throughout the
duration of the project Tree protection fencing will be installed as noted on the construction plans Stream banks will be
stabilized using biodegradable matting and planted with native grasses trees and shrubs The contractor will only perform
work on a section of stream that can be stabilized in the same day and all other areas will be stabilized within 48 hours All
work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area
Sod will be added to the bottom of the RCBCs to create a more natural channel bottom Rip rap aprons and adding stone to
augment existing plunge pools downstream of outfalls will help dissipate flows and protect the downstream channel
2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
2b If yes mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c If yes ? which mitigation option will be used for this
project
❑ payment to in lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

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 I
acres
4h Comments
5 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
6 Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1 5
6f Total buffer mitigation required
6g If buffer mitigation is required discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g payment to private mitigation bank
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration payment into an approved in lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

E
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1
Diffuse Flow Plan
la
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
lb
If yes then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no explain why
❑ Yes ® No
Comments
2
Stormwater Management Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this projects
less than 24 %
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan explain why DWQ does not require a Stormwater
Management Plan for projects that are subject to Section 404 NWP 3 and NWP 27 authorizations
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan then provide a brief narrative description of the plan
❑ Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government s jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte /Mecklenburg
County
® Phase II
3b
Which of the following locally implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a
Which of the following state implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 246
❑ Other
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

F
Supplementary Information
1
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1b
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
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
NA
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c If yes indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
® Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Obtained an updated list of federally protected species from the US Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) website (http / /nc
es fws gov /es /countyfr html)
NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS coverage database search
Suitable habitat for Schweirntz s sunflower (Helianthus schweirntzu) was present with in the Project Area A pedestrian
survey was conducted during its flowering season and no individuals were present
The FWS concureed with our findings in a response dated November 22 2010 (FWS Log No 4 2 -09 105)
The NHP commented that the only rare species located within a mile of the Project Area is the long extirpated population
of the Federally Endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) from Paw Creek The species was last noted in
this creek (specific location not well documented) prior to 1918 (correspondence dated January 12 2009)
6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitats
TO Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e g National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
HDR reviewed the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) GIS database and found no known structures or historic
districts located within a mile of the Project Area
Correspondence (dated January 7 2009) was sent to the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requesting
information on cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project SHPO reviewed (ER 09 0043) the
project and commented that no historic resources would be affected (dated January 27 2009)
8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b If yes explain how project meets FEMA requirements A Floodplain Development Permit for the Allenbrook Tributary
Stream Restoration Project was submitted and approved by the Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation Program
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Floodplain Mapping Information System
http / /floodmaps nc gov /fmis/
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

Enc Mularski
12/21/2011
Applicant/Agent s Printed Name - I v 'Cppiicant&e- nt'�gnature I Date
(Agents signature is valid only i an authorization letter from the applicant
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

-I TRIM,N
e
iLu
OAKDALE NOR---,
OAKDALE
HAMILTON
o4
� � CIRCLE
a GARDEN PARK
\ J + — .HOMESTD
?. '
w ..
TODD PARK
PAW CREEK _ o.
.- WILDW040 °"- TODOVILLE WILSON
CHE AY HEIGHT$
Cherltway
x
G WESTCHESTER `
2 UNIVE ARK
PAWTUCKETT 4 FL HOSKINS LINCOLN
L AKVIEW 21
HEIGHTS
Project Area ERRACE .....
3: Forest WASHINGTON
TODDViLLE ROAD Lawn HEIGHTS
°' Cemetery LAKEWOOD 16 BLE
MCCROREY
HEIGHTS
DRUI
w
o " SMALLWOOD
U
" ( ENDERLY PARK
v
o ' ,
" St SEVER$VILLE s� wood La
dS21 r 9 emetery 16
�? WESLEY TH RD WARD
HEIGHTS FOURTH WA
Fq
WESTERLY HILLS
>- 4 ASHLEY PARK
r
} wr+ea tyti UPTOV
74 �. F I R
Charlotte Douglas
International
j°art SECON
CAPITOL DRIVE
o WESTOVER HILLS ILMORE WARD
160 }
WINGATE REVOLUTION PARK`+>
{ REID PARK WEST BLVD 19 SOUTH ENDM
DILWORTH t
�?
Array ARBOR GLEN OantUrl BROOKHJLLS {r
a�
� "ark
U1 inch =1 mile UTHSIDE PARK �
0 0.5 1 2
n SEDGEFIELD r
Miles ?21 rsr r,
Project Vicinity
fq Figure 1
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions -
Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services I Allenbrook Westridge Storm Water CIP

USGS Mountain Island Lake Quadrangle
1j ` Figure 2
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions -
Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services I Allenbrook Westridge Storm Water CIP

• . Area 1�1161c U�
! a
Allenbrook • utary (RPW with Perennial Flow) Northern Or
Westridge Tributary (RPW with Perennial Flow)
Mecklenburg County Hydrography
` v
National • Inventory
� 1
aaA
Realer Rd
low
c Gu \\ Ot
O _
�n
Tar - Heel Rd
;:_
001111.10/.
m Wabash Av
or
. � mo Tanglebriar Dr _�, ,r
Woodway PI ate �g
a�
r Westcrest.Dr, , �
41 191k.
/ 9oOi des O�
�0 a
c °�o �drd t
�a�L a / /Slon o NorthAv
C! '
Key,St.,
o`Q
Lynn St -
a011,p� r �
CD
� oa
en�n GoosebP
p
Q
Ra
cry �° 02
Doverstone Ct d G� °'�6 v �� �
-\QA N� m
1,000 feet a
1 500 1.000 2,000
Feet
�N w S 185 Ra
f

• � �•, • : '�I - •• -• -�� eD2 CeB2 cosy
•. • • • - • :', CUB o�
Northern Dr Q
• • • °
Exchange St a
CeD2
Ce Ur Bearer Rd
5 � CeD CeB2
A DHeB CeB2
' Tar Heel Rd i
ApD
�a
e° At'
°ktree pr CeD2
CeD-2 Wabash Av
PaE CeB2
Ur a
o _ Woodway Ft PaF °
0
3
CD
0 a�P�
m Q Westcrest,Dr F /ae� b \�`eC�t� P�
o �Lest e�yq` ' \00�
o a - a9e , o- �✓
CeD o —o a p s dies `
cam`
�
CeB2 dap /e/ Ceg2
eaf cap \fie \\
CeB2
PaE 'iib /age CUD �esfP� M
pr p, 0
tea, °d /rye St
Ce
PaE c;- CUB CeB2
2
a
CFO Fa /lsto o North Av.
p m ,
D CeD2 Key St
k a
CeD2 �P r CeB Lynn St r
eD Hoover St
RasAbe 2 0` o
!� CeB2 r D
PaE
co p o
e2 CeB2
CeD osP6P� CeD2 a�kaa /e
\,Doverstone Ct r
CeD2
1,000 feet Ur
1 500 1,000 2,000 Say \ee S� 3 w
Feet
o S 1-85 Ra
CUB
�nj EnB w

NC DWn Stream identification Form Version 4 11
Date
Absent
Weak
ProfecVSite
Latitude
Evaluator
V_�y
Longitude
Total Points
Stream Determination (ci
Other
Stream is at least intermittent � Q
Ephemeral Intermittent erennl
e g Quad Name
if 2:19 or perennial if a 30
3 In channel structure ex riffle pool step pool
ripple-pool se uence
0
A Geomorphology (Subtotal =—L >S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Stron
1 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In channel structure ex riffle pool step pool
ripple-pool se uence
0
1
1
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplam
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other -
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
65
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
5
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes =C3)
artificial ditches are not rated see dis ussions in manual
R Hvdroloov (Subtotal = � S )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
5
1
1 5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 05
1
1 1 5
17 Sod based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes -
C Rioloov (Subtotal = gill O )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
Z
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
15
25 Algae
0
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other -
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes -j-gA,&&jkg;V
r
1
y �vl.l
L-aw -- 0-0rSrL V- r- V..,FS t
IMP m
s"r
Sketch
F
r

NC DWn Stream Identification Form Version 4 11
Date I �'-d,>%t
Project/Site�
Latitude
Evaluator MM r µ,,,i,,A4zAw
County N r-Ay- + -, a!
Longitude -8D9
Total Points
Stream Determination (cir
Other►
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Interm en erenmal
e g Quad Name Lq4
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30
2
3
A Geomorphology Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In channel structure ex riffle pool step pool
ripple sequence
0
/,�
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5 Active /relict floodplaln
0
9)
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1 5
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
QD
15
11 Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
R Hvriminnv (Siihtntal = t? 1
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
0
1
15
17 Soil based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =
r: Rinlnnv (Siihtntal = 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
d
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
rb
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
— 05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
1
1 5
25 Algae
0
05
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes a
S GyF V kZJA, ►NGSF
W-V v
o fe—
k0sr,%
gF�l
Sketch
��
�
�
r
F3rrA/t V
�'—

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Allenbrook Tributary
STREAM QUALITY M NT WORKSHEET
fih,Srp,.O•S� �. �.
I Applicants Name City of Charlotte 2 Evaluators Name Eric Mularski
3 Date of Evaluation 11/03/2011 4 Time of Evaluaton 8 30 AM
5 Name of Stream UT to Paw Creek - Allenbrook Tributary 6 River Basin Catawba
7 Approximate Drainage Area 345 acres 8 Stream Order 2nd
9 Length of Reach Evaluated approximately 3,200 If 10 County Mecklenburg
11 Site Coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees 12 Subdivision name (if any) Allenbrook
Latitude (ex 34 872312) 35 26 Longitude (ex 77 55 66 11) 8091
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Othe Field survey
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location) See attached map
14 Proposed Channel Work (if any) Stream restoration and enhancement
15 Recent Weather Conditions sunny, mid 60 °s
16 Site conditions at time of visit sunny, mid 60 0s
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ® If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (9 ) NO 20 Does channel appear on USDA Sod Surveys YE NO
21 Estimated Watershed Land Use 60 % Residential
30 % Forested
_% Commercial 10 % Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other
22 Bankfull Width 1520 23 Bank Height (from bed to top of bank) 5 6
24 Channel slope down center of stream _Flat (0 to 2 %) _L _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25 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 sconng 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) 45 Comments Channel is incised with stream banks actively eroding Excessive sediment
deposition is evident and depositing in pools and bar formation Garbage and debris is present throughout the channel
Evaluators Signature L44— - Date 111412011
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 06/03 To Comment please call 919 876 8441 x 26

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Allenbrook Trlbutary
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow 1 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
2
no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
Q
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max p oints
v
6
Presence of adjacent floodplam
0-4
0 — 4
0-2
1
no flood lain = 0 extensive flood lain = max points)
CL
7
Entrenchment I floodplam access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0 large adjacent 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
1
extensive deposition= 0 little or no sediment = max poi nts
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
2
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
(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)
q
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
substantial impact =0 no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
16
Presence of riffle poottripple pool complexes
no nffles/ripples or pools = 0 well-developed = max points)
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
3
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
little or no habitat = 0 frequent vaned 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
2
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 es = max points)
m
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
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)
45

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Westrdge Tributary
MSTREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET AQO
1 Applicants Name City of Charlotte 2 Evaluators Name Eric Mularski
3 Date of Evaluation 11/03/2011 4 Time of Evaluation 10 30 am
5 Name of Stream UT to Paw Creek — Westndge Tributary 6 River Basin Catawba
7 Approximate Drainage Area 130 acres 8 Stream Order 1st
9 Length of Reach Evaluated 1,750 If 10 County Mecklenburg
11 Site Coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees 12 Subdivision name (if any) Allenbrook
Latitude (ex 34 872312) 35 26 Longitude (ex 77 55 66 11) -80 91
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other field surve
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location) (see attached maps)
14 Proposed Channel Work (if any) Stream enhancement
15 Recent Weather Conditions sunny, mid 60 °s
16 Site conditions at time of visit sunny, mid 60 0s
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (ND If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20 Does channel appear on USDA Sod Surveys YES NO
21 Estimated Watershed Land Use 70 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
30 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22 Bankfull Width 56 23 Bank Height (from bed to top of bank) 5
24 Channel slope down center of stream _Flat (0 to 2 %) _X _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25 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 sconng 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) 42 Comments Westndge Tributary is a channelized stream that serves as a natural
property boundary through a residential neighborhood The stream channel is incised and exhibits areas with severe bank erosion
Evaluator s Signature
Date 111312011
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 06/03 To Comment please call 919 876 8441 x 26

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Westrldae Trlbutary
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow 1 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 points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
Q
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
v
V5
6
Presence of adjacent floodplam
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
1
no flood lain = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
a
7
Entrenchment / floodplam access
0-5
0-4
0-2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max rots
10
Sediment input
0 -5
0 -4
0 -4
2
extensive de ositlon= 0 little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
2
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points
I---
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
2
d
severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
F
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
substantial impact =0 no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
16
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
no riffies/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
2
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
little or no habitat = 0 frequent vaned habitats = max points)
=ra
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0— 5
0— 5
0— 5
3
no shading ve etabon = 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
2
no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
O
21
Presence of amphibians
0— 4
0— 4
0— 4
2
no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
J
2
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
1
ca
no evidence = 0 common numerous es = max points)
F23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max p2Ln ts
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
42

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site Allenbrook Westrndge Capital Improvements Project City /County Charlotte /Mecklenburg Sampling Date 11/3/2011
Applicant/Owner Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services State NC Sampling Point DP1
Investigator(s) Eric Mularski Section Township Range N/A
Landform (hdlslope terrace etc) hdlslope Local relief (concave convex none) concave Slope (°/) 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 of LRR P Lat 35 26 Long 80 91 Datum
Sod Map Unit Name CuB Cecil Urban land complex NWI classification None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects Important features etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes No V within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No V
Remarks
Upland data point
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reawred check
all that apply)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Agwtard (D3)
_ Water Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
10(
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available
Remarks
No wetland hydrology Indicators are present
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point DP1
7
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 ft )
° Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Quercus rubra
20
Yes FACU
That Are OBL FACW or FAC 3 (A)
2 Quercus alba 20 Yes FACU
Fagus grandifolia
20
Yes FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3
Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
4
Species Across All Strata (B)
15
4
FACU species x4=
3 Ligustrum laporncum
15
Yes NI
UPL species x5=
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
That Are OBL FACW or FAC 25/ (A/B)
6
6
7
Prevalence Index worksheet
8
Total A Cover of. Multiply by.
60
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15 ft
)
FACW species x2=
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
20
Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2 Carya spp
15
Yes NI
FACU species x4=
3 Ligustrum laporncum
15
Yes NI
UPL species x5=
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
9
2 Dominance Testis >50/
3 Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10
_
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30 ft )
1 Toxicodendron radicans
2
3
4
5
6
50 _ 4 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must
be present unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
Tree — Woody plants excluding vines 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
height
Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants excluding vines less
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb —All herbaceous (non woody) plants regardless
of size and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
= Total Cover Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
10 No FAC
10 = Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Upland vegetation Is dominant
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point DP1
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators )
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _L Color (moist) % Type' Loe� Texture Remarks
02 10YR 4/3 100 silt loam
214+ 10YR 4/6 100 silt clay loam
Hydric Sod Indicators
Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Sods3
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147 148)
(MLRA 147 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N
_ Iron Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N
MLRA 147 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—, Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (1719) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present
Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic
Type
Depth (inches)
No hydric soil Indicators are present
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes No `(
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

f DR
%J1-4E %. %Jlv'YAIN i , �viany "lnt'"ns" bite Photographs - AllenbrooK Westridge Storm Water UP
Photograph #1- Allenbrook Tributary looking upstream
I Photograph #2 - Westridge Tributary looking downstream

FDR
��.L aRy ju -lu bite F'notoarauns — AlienprooK westriaae storm water sir
Photograph #3 - Existing Allenbrook Drive 139" x 89" Arched CMP looking downstream
I Photograph #4 - Existing Lanewood Place 133" x 76" CMP looking downstream

FDR
vnE l kjiyi nn I , many outimum" bite Nnotograpns - AnennrooK westriage Storm water sir
Photograph #5 - Existing Westridge Drive 78" RCP looking upstream

ICDE�IR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Natural Resources Planning and Conservation
Beverly Eaves Perdue Governor Linda Pearsall, Director Dee Freeman Secretary
January 12 2009
Mr Eric Mularski
HDR Enginee►tng Inc of the Carolinas
128 S Tryon Street Suite 1400
Charlotte NC 28202 5004
Subject Ailenbrook Watershed Restoration Planning Charlotte Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr Mularski
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of significant natural communities significant natural
heritage areas or conservation /managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area The only
rare species location within a mile is the long extirpated population of the Federally Endangered Carolina
lieelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) from Paw Creek The species was last noted in this creek (specific
location not well documented) prior to 1918
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database websrte 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 websrte 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 /phis /public /gmap75_mam phtml> The user name is "public ` and the
password is 'heritage' You may want to click Help for more information
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free This service provides site
specific information on GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas The NC OneMap websrte 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 b)
NHP staff For more information about data formats and access visit <www nconemap com >, then click
on 'FTP Data Download' and then "nheo zip [to the right of Natural Heritage Element Occurrences ]
You may also a mail NC OneMap at <dataq@a ncmail net> for more information
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919 715 8697 if you have questi� s or need further information
Sincerely
Harry E LeGrand Jr Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mad Service Center Raleigh North Carolina 276991601 NOCa'011ria
Phone [phone] t FAX [phone] Internet www oneNCNaturaily org Y.11044
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper Natural Resauroes Pbimmg and Caiserumron

Beverly Ea es Perdue, Go,. erhor
Linda A Carlisle, Sccruary
jeffrev J Crow Deputy Secretary
January 27 2009
Eric Mularski
HDR Engineering Inc
128 South Tryon Street
Suite 1400
North Carohna Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B Sandbeck, Adnumstrator
of the Carolinas
Charlotte NC 28202 -5004
Offce of Archives and H story
D rsron of Histoncal Resourccm
D1 d Brook Director
Re Allenbrook Watershed Restoration Pl inning Mecklenburg County ER 09 0043
Dear Mr Mularski
Thank you for your letter of January 7 2009 concerning the above project
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project Therefore we have no comment on the project as proposed
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Histonc 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 919 807 -6579 In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking numbe>_
Sincerely
eter Sandbeck
Location. 109 Lrast Jones Street Raleigh NC 27601 Ma lung Address- 4617 Mad Set%= Center Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone /Pax (919) 807 0u70 /807 6574

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville North Carolina 28801
November 22 2010
Mr Eric Mularski
HDR Engineering Inc
440 S Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte North Carolina 28202
Dear Mr Mularski
Subject Federally Listed Species Assessment for Allenbrook Watershed Restoration
Project in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County North Carolina
On February 2, 2009 we provided you a letter with our comments on the subject project
In that letter we requested that a survey be conducted for the federally endangered
Schweinitz s sunflower (Hehanthus schweanatzaa) because suitable habitat existed within
the project area On October 29, 2010 we received correspondence from you that
included the results of a survey for Schweimtz s sunflower conducted by HDR The
following comments are based on our review of the information that you provided in that
letter and are in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U S C 661 667e) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531 1543) (Act)
Federally Listed Species - After reviewing the information that you provided we concur
with your conclusion that no listed species occur on the site We do not believe any
endangered or threatened species will be affected by the proposed project therefore the
requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled However, obligations under
section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined
that may be affected by the identified action
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments If we can be of assistance or
if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Bryan Tompkins of our
staff at 828/258 3939, Ext 240 In any future correspondence concerning this project,
please reference our Log Number 4 2 09 105

8 A discussion about the extent to which the project will result in the loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat from direct construction
impacts and from secondary development impacts
9 Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses (wetland riverme, and upland) associated
with any phase of the proposed project
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Mr Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258 -3939, Ext 240 In any future correspondence concerning tlus project please reference
our Log Number 4 -2 -09 -105
Siac rely,
Brian P Cole
Field Supervisor

United States Department of the Intenor
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 7alhcoa Street
Asheville North Carolina 28801
February 2 2009
Mr Enc Mularski
HDR Engineering Inc of the Carolinas
128 S Tryon Street, Suite 1400
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 -5004
Dear Mr Mularski
Subject Listed Species Assessment Allenbrook Watershed Restoration Planning Project,
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County North Carolina
In your letter of January 7 2009, you requested our comments on the subject project We have
reviewed the information you presented and are providing the following comments in accordance
with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U S C
661- 667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U S C
1531 -1543) (Act)
Your letter does not include a description of the project or any potential impacts It is impossible
for us to give a detailed assessment without a complete set of plans that includes the exact
location of the project and specific details regarding project plans and construction techniques
The purpose of this letter is only to inform you of federally listed species that occur within the
geographical area indicated on the map you sent, and we have included a detailed list of
information that will be required for us to fully assess the potential direct indirect, and
cumulative impacts of any construction/development projects in this area
Endangered Species You stated in your letter that suitable habitat for the federally endangered
Schwetnitz's sunflower (Hehanthus schwetnazra) occurs within the proposed project area Our
records indicate that this species has been found near the proposed project site Your letter did
not indicate whether surveys have been conducted for tlus or other rare plant species within the
project impact area Unless the area has been specifically surveyed for this listed species or no
appropriate habitat exists, a survey should be conducted to ensure that this species is not
inadvertently lost We recommend that surveys for this species be conducted during its
flowering period (August t4rough October)

In accordance with the Act, before any federal authonzation/permits or funding can be issued for
this project, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal regulatory /permitting agency(ies) to
determine whether the project may affect any federally endangered or threatened species (listed
species) or designated critical habitat If it is determined that this project may affect any listed
species or designated critical habitat, section 7 consultation with this office must be initiated
At this stage of project development and without more specifics about construction locations and
techniques it is difficult for us to assess potential environmental impacts (direct, mdirect and
cumulative) We therefore recommend that any environmental document prepared for this
project include the following (if applicable)
1 A complete analysis and comparison of the available alternatives (the build
and no -build alternatives)
2 An assessment of any development that will impact the 100 -year floodplain
3 A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional rights -of -way and any areas such as borrow areas, that
may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project
4 The acreage and a description of the wetlands that will be filled as a result of
the proposed project Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be
mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual for IdentYfying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands We recommend contacting the
U S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine the need for a
Section 404 Clean Water Act permit Avoiding and mimmizmg wetland
impacts is a part of the Corps' permitting process, and we will consider other
potential alternatives in the review of any permits
5 The extent (linear feet as well as discharge) of any water courses that will be
impacted as a result of the proposed project A description of any streams
should include the classification (Rosgen 1995, 1996) and a description of the
biotic resources
6 The acreage of upland habitat by cover type, that will be eliminated because
of the proposed project
7 A description of all expected secondary and cumulative environmental
impacts associated with this proposed work The assessment should specify
the extent and type of development proposed for the project area once the
work is complete and how future growth will be maintained and supported
with regard to sewer lines, water lines, parking areas, and any proposed
roadways