20091277 Ver 2_401 Application_20140214

11
1�61 CWS1
Carolina Wetland Services
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 - Phone
704 -527 -1133 - Fax
TO: Ms Karen Higgins
NCDWR— Wetlands and Storm Water Branch
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27603
o� L) a-,
Date 2/3/14
CWS Project # 2013 -3231
a
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
J.
WE ARE SENDING YOU ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items.
❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
V TwT-T V ATn rTCV TTC AT nT.TrP
l
1/31/14
5
Application for Water Quality Certification
2
1/31/14
1
Application Fee Check ($570)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment ❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS Karen Please find attached five copies of the Preconstruction Notification and application for
Water Quality Certification 3885 and 3890 for the Peterson Drive SDIP in Charlotte NC A check for the application fee is
also attached
Copy to- File
Thank you,
omas Blackwell, PWS
Senior Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
FEB - 5 2017
D NR -
ds a�sa�A....... lrY

ri
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Project - Phase III
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: Charlotte-Mecklenburg_ Storm Water Services (CMSWS)
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: CMSWS; Mr. Isaac Hinson, PWS
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): Phase I: USACE Action ID 2009 - 02133, DWR# 09 -1277
Phase II was known as "Scaleybark Detention Facility" but was considered separate and complete
5. Site Address: East Peterson Drive, Charlotte, NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Charlotte
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: N35.188916° Long: W80.8798060 (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Charlotte East, NC, dated 1991 and Charlotte West, NC, dated 1996
11. Waterway: UT to Irwin Creek
12. Watershed: Catawba/Santee (HU# 03050103)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 27 and 39
a
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
Prepare File Folder
AID:
Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site /Waters Name:
Keywords:
Begin Date
O
FEB - 5 Zt�,4

ii
i % CWS
Carolina Wetland Services
January 31, 2014
Ms Amanda Fuemmeler
U S Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866 - 527 -1177 (office)
704 - 527 -1133 (fax)
Ms Karen Higgins
N C Division of Water Resources
Compliance and Permitting Unit
512 N Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification (Nationwide Permit Nos. 3 and 27)
Water Quality Certification No. 3885 and 3890
Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Project - Phase III
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2013 -3231
The Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Project (SDIP) - Phase III is located in southwestern
Charlotte, North Carolina, dust south of the Interstate 77 (1 -77) — Clanton Road Interchange (Figure
1 USGS Site Location Map, attached) The purpose of this project is to improve storm drainage and
reduce flooding within the project area The project will also enhance a currently degraded stream
channel. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) has contracted Carolina Wetland
Services, Inc (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project
Applicant Name: Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, POC Mr Isaac J Hinson, PWS
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: 704 - 336 -4495
Street Address of Project: Peterson Drive, Charlotte, NC
Tax Parcel ID: Multiple
Waterway: UT to Irwin Creek
Basin: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35 188916 °, W80 879806 °
USGS Quadrangle Name: Charlotte East, NC, dated 1991 and Charlotte West, NC, 1996
Project History
The Peterson Drive SDIP Phase III was originally referred to as Peterson Phase II, but is now Phase
III The current Phase II is the Scaleybark Detention Facility, which is located in a different drainage
basin and was ultimately considered and permitted as a separate and complete project from Phase I and
Phase III (USACE Action ID 2013- 01584, DWR # 13 -0903) In correspondence between CMSWS,
the USACE, and NCDWR, it was determined that Peterson Drive SDIP Phases I and III would be
evaluated cumulatively as they are mostly geographically contiguous, and the Scaleybark Detention
Facility (Phase II) would be evaluated separately
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW CWS -INC NET

Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Protect —Phase III January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Proiect No. 2013 -3231
Peterson Drive SDIP Phase I consisted of approximately 362 linear feet of stream enhancement
(USACE Action ID 2009 - 02133, DWR # 09 -1277) Phase I did not result in a loss of jurisdictional
waters of the U S There have been some failures associated with the enhancement work undertaken
during Phase I These failures will be addressed concurrently with the enhancement work proposed
under Phase III This will ensure that the success criteria for Phase I are met
Current Land Use
The project area is approximately 76 acres in extent and consists of a mix of residential, commercial,
and light industrial land uses, with small adjacent wooded areas Typical on -site vegetation includes
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), willow oak (Quercus phellos), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), kudzu (Puerarta
montana), fescue (Festuca spp ), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica)
According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County' (Figure 2 NRCS Soil Survey Map, attached),
on -site soils consist of, Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (Ce132), Cecil -Urban land
complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes (CuB) and Urban land (Ur) Cecil soils are well drained Urban land is
mostly covered with impervious surfaces and too disturbed to be assigned a drainage class None of
these soils are listed on the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg Countyz or on the
National Hydric Soils List3
Jurisdictional Determination
On August 16, 2011, CWS's Thomas Blackwell, PWS and Kelly Hines delineated jurisdictional
waters of the U S within the project area Jurisdictional areas were delineated 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 Manual4, the 2007 USACE Jurisdictional
Determination Form Instructional Guidebook', with further technical guidance from the Eastern
Mountains & Piedmont Interim Regional Supplement6, dated July 2010 A Wetland Determination
Data Form representative of the on -site non - jurisdictional upland areas is attached as (DPI) The
location of this data point is identified as DPI on Figure 3 (attached) A Jurisdictional Determination
Verification for Phase I was issued by the USACE on December 15, 2009 (Action ID No SAW-2009-
02133) (attached)
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina
Division of Water Resources ( NCDWR) guidance These classifications included sampling with a D-
shaped dip net, taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel
changes classification) within each on -site stream channel NCDWR Stream Classification Forms and
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets representative of Streams A and Bare attached (SCP1
— SCP3) The locations of these stream classification points are identified as SCP1 to SCP3 on Figure
3(attached)
i United States Department of Agriculture, 1971 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
2 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA -NRCS
North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
'United States Department of Agriculture —Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010 2010 National Hydric Soils List by State
'Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
i USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook 2007 USACE Regulatory National Standard Operating Procedures for
conducting an approved Jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD USACE Headquarters,
Washington, DC
6 US Army Corps of Engineers, July 2010 Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi
2

Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Project —Phase III January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Proiect No. 2013 -3231
The results of the on -site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are two jurisdictional
stream channels (Streams A and B) located within the project area (Figure 3, attached) On -Site streams
are unnamed tributaries to Irwin Creek Irwin Creek is within the Santee River basin (HU# 03050103)'
and is classified as "Class C" waters by the NCDWR On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U S are
summarized in Table 1, below
Relatively Permanent Waters — Perennial Flow
Stream A flows northwest through the southern portion of the project area for approximately 991
linear feet before flowing off -site (Figure 3, attached) The lower 682 linear feet of Stream A were
determined to be Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) with Perennial flow Perennial Stream A
displayed strong bed and banks, moderate sinuosity, ordinary high water widths of three to five feet,
and a substrate consisting of sand to coarse gravel Biological sampling revealed a weak presence of
amphibians Stream characteristics indicate that flow is present year round Therefore, this portion of
Stream A was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW) with perennial flow according to
USACE /EPA guidance Perennial RPW Stream A scored 45 out of a possible 100 points on the
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 34 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR
Stream Classification Form (SCP1, enclosed) Photographs A and B (attached) are representative of
Perennial RPW Stream A
Stream B flows northwest through the northern portion of the project area for approximately 236 linear
feet between Dewitt Lane and Ellenwood Place (Figure 3, attached) Stream B was determined to be
Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) with perennial flow Perennial RPW Stream B displayed strong
bed and banks, weak sinuosity, ordinary high water widths of 2 to 4 feet, and a substrate consisting of
fine sand to coarse gravel Biological sampling revealed a weak presence of crayfish, macrobenthos,
and amphibians Stream characteristics indicate that flow is present year round Therefore, Stream B
was classified as a relatively permanent water (RPW) with perennial flow according to USACE /EPA
guidance Perennial RPW Stream A scored 39 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet and 32 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream
Classification Form (SCP3, enclosed) Large portions of Perennial Stream B have been piped and
much of the remaining channel is closely confined by development Photograph E (attached) is
representative of Perennial RPW Stream B
7 "HU #" is the Hydrologic Unit Code U S Geological Survey, 1974 Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina
3

Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Project —Phase III January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Proiect No. 2013 -3231
Relatively Permanent Waters — Seasonal Flow
The upper 309 linear feet of Stream A was determined to have intermittent flow Intermittent Stream
A exhibited a moderate bed and bank, weak in- channel structure, substrate consisting of sand and silt,
and an average ordinary high water width of two to three feet Stream characteristics indicate that
continuous flow is present for at least three months in an average year Therefore, this portion of
Stream A was classified as a relatively permanent water with seasonal flow (Seasonal RPW) according
to USACE /EPA guidance Seasonal RPW Stream A scored 21 out of a possible 100 points on the
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 18 5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR
Stream Classification Form (SCP2, enclosed) Due to its very poor physical and biological condition it
was determined that this portion Stream A has minimal aquatic function CMSWS is requesting a
waiver to the 300 linear foot impact threshold of the Nationwide Permit Program due to the low
quality of Stream A Photographs C and D (attached) are representative of Seasonal RPW Stream A
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on August 15, 2011 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would
be affected by the project In a response dated August 29, 2011 (attached), the SHPO stated that "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 "
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) on August 15, 2011
to determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical
habitat located within the project area In a response letter dated August 23, 2011 (attached), the
NCNHP stated that "The NCNHP has no record of rare species, significant natural communities,
significant natural heritage areas, or conservation /managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the
project area"
In addition, the NCNHP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database Virtual Workroom and
Element Occurrence (EO) database was reviewed for a listing of EOs of endangered or threatened
species within or near the project area The EO database identified no endangered or threatened species
within a two -mile radius of the project area
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of the Peterson Drive SDIP (all phases) is to alleviate the flooding of streets, properties
and structures by improving storm drainage infrastructure and to enhance on -site degraded stream
channels The need for this project was identified through the City of Charlotte's South Corridor
Infrastructure Prioritization Process Figure 4 (attached) shows the location of service requests to
CMSWS located within the project area

Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Project —Phase iII January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Project No 2013 -3231
Phase I —Completed Phase I of this project was approved in 2009 (USAGE Action ID 2009 - 02133,
DWR# 09 -1277) and has been completed The purpose of this phase of the project was to improve the
quality of Perennial RPW Stream A This was necessary as the channel was incised and eroding and
therefore a source of sediment pollution This phase of this project consisted of the enhancement of
362 LF of Perennial RPW Stream A These enhancements were completed in 2011 and extend from
the downstream extent of the Phase III enhancements to the S Tryon Street culvert Since completion,
portions of the enhanced stream have exhibited instability, including bank erosion and structure
failure These areas will be addressed during construction of Phase III
Phase III The purpose of this phase of the project is to reduce flooding through pipe system upgrades
and to enhance approximately 270 linear feet of currently degraded stream channel located
downstream of Heriot Avenue
The greatest impact to jurisdictional waters will result from the installation of approximately 309 linear
feet of pipe within the existing Seasonal RPW Stream A located between Heriot Avenue and
East Cama Street and 22 linear feet of pipe within the existing Perennial RPW Stream A located dust
downstream of Heriot Avenue (Figure 5, attached) The purpose of this pipe installation is to reduce
flooding The installation of pipe at this location is necessary as there are several structures and
buildings located immediately adjacent to the channel that are subject to flooding
The purpose of the proposed stream enhancement located downstream of Heriot Avenue is to improve
stream stability, habitat, and function within the stream reach This is necessary as the stream is
currently incised, and displays raw, eroding banks, minimal habitat for aquatic life, and evidence of
extensive sediment input
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U S have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable Permanent impacts, consisting of a pipe extension and energy dissipater, total 309 linear
feet of poor quality intermittent stream channel and 43 linear feet of perennial stream channel The
new pipe was determined to be the least damaging and only practicable design option that will achieve
the flood control goals of the project Other alternatives included various combinations of shorter pipe
extensions and channel enhancements Due to the highly impervious existing and future watershed
conditions, the system is has a very flashy hydrology There are also multiple structures and buildings
immediately adjacent to the upstream portion of the channel In addition to getting flooded, these
structures provide lateral constraints that preclude stream enhancement alternatives that could provide
flood control benefits The proposed pipe will convey most storm events beyond the nearby
businesses located along the upstream reach, to the mostly vacant and wooded downstream reach The
exact downstream extent of the pipe extension was designed to ensure that the drainage improvements
extend beyond the currently flooding structures and the existing undersized culvert located within the
Heriot Avenue right -of -way These extents ensure minimal impacts to the downstream perennial
portion of Stream A, which provides more habitat and functional value than the upstream intermittent
reach, which is more impacted by human encroachment, such as direct storm water connections, lot
grading, fences, and buffer disturbances
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters All work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification Nos
3885 and 3890

Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Project —Phase III January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Proiect No. 2013 -3231
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
The overall project will involve the replacement of existing pipe systems, pipe extension, installation
of a rip rap stilling basin, and stream enhancement Stream A downstream of Henot Avenue will be
enhanced by laying back the banks and installing cross vanes to provide improved bank stability
(Phase III Plan Sheet 3, attached)
Unavoidable impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the U S total 657 linear feet of stream impacts These
impacts include 352 linear feet of permanent impacts and 305 linear feet of temporary impacts (Figure 5,
attached)
Impacts under Nationwide Permit No 39
Permanent impacts to Stream A under NWP No 39 total 352 linear feet and are the result of 309 linear
feet of permanent impacts to Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A and 43 linear feet of permanent
impacts to Perennial RPW Stream A CMSWS is requesting a waiver of the 300 linear foot threshold
under the Nationwide Permit Program due to the low quality of Stream A.
Permanent impacts to Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A total 309 linear feet, and are the result of pipe
installation (Figures 6 and 7, attached) (Phase III Plan Sheets 3 and 4, Sta 13 +91 to 17 +00, attached)
The existing 30" RCP upstream of Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A will be replaced with a 42" RCP
in order to improve street drainage in the East Cama Street and East Peterson Drive area The existing
stream channel is very poor quality and is causing flooding of adjacent properties Due to the close
proximity of existing buildings it is not feasible to increase the dimensions of the channel to handle storm
flows Therefore, the proposed 42" RCP will be extended downstream by 87 linear feet to tie into 162
linear feet of proposed 48" RCP The proposed pipe will then tie in to 60 linear feet of proposed 54"
RCP tying in to 32 linear feet of existing pipe that will be replaced under Henot Avenue
Permanent impacts to Perennial RPW Stream A total 43 linear feet, and are the result of 22 linear feet of
proposed 54" RCP and 21 linear feet of a proposed rip rap stilling basin (Figure 6, attached) (Phase III
Plan Sheet 3, Sta 13 +16 to 13 +59, attached) The stilling basin will dissipate high energy storm flows at
the outfall before entering the proposed restored channel at this location (Phase III Plan Sheet 3 Sta
10 +46 to 13 +16, attached)
Impacts under Nationwide Permit No 27
Temporary impacts to Perennial RPW Stream A under NWP No 27 total 270 linear feet and are the
result of stream enhancement (Figure 6, attached) This enhancement work will include the installation of
two rock vanes (Phase III Plan Sheet 3, Sta 10 +46 to 13 +16, attached) The existing stream banks in this
reach are steep, unstable and eroding (Photographs A and B, attached) The stream bank will be laid
back, matted and live staked with deep rooted, native plant species to provide bank stability This will
result in a net improvement in stream quality and stability Details of the proposed enhancement are
included (Phase III Plan Sheet 2A, attached)
Temporary impacts to Perennial RPW Stream B total 35 linear feet, and are the result of rebuilding the
existing rip rap armored channel bank that has become clogged with debris (Figure 8, attached) (Phase III
Plan Sheet 10, Sta 19 +65 to 20 +00, attached) Rebuilding this bank is necessary to protect the existing
sanitary sewer manhole that is located close to the channel No rip rap will be placed in the stream bed
Unavoidable impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 2, below
0

Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Project —Phase III January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Protect No. 2013 -3231
Table 2. Summary of Impacts to On -Site Jurisdictional Waters
On behalf of CMSWS, CWS is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification Application with attachments
in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No 31 and pursuant to Nationwide Permits No
27 and 39, (enclosed)
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S associated with Peterson CIP Phase III have
been limited to 43 linear feet of perennial stream channel and 309 linear feet of low quality
intermittent stream channel In addition, 270 linear feet of stream enhancement is proposed as part of
Peterson Drive SDIP Phase III
Cumulatively, a total of 614 linear feet of stream channel will be enhanced by this project This is
comprised of 344 linear feet from Phase I and 270 linear feet from Phase III This stream enhancement
will result in improved stream stability and reduced sediment input The permanently impacted stream
channel exhibits poor quality and minimal habitat Therefore, CMSWS proposes the stream
enhancement completed in Phase I (344 linear feet), and the enhancement proposed in Phase III of this
project (270 linear feet) as mitigation for all other impacts (352 linear feet) caused by the construction
of this project CMSWS believes that this project will have an overall positive effect on water quality
7
o
Tem or /
P �-
k
Ptiase'Jui
sdict onal{
gam.
Int m tt`en
NWP
kN
`mil n
Station
ApproV
Featu F,
PeretiniaL
_
mpact.Typer
�
Sheet
_Permanent
Approximate
Acre's
-
-
rN
=�-.
No. =�
- =
.
4,�_
_ Len
Perennial RPW
10 +46 to
270 If
Perennial
Enhancement
27
3
002
Stream A
13 +16
(Temporary)
Perennial RPW
Rip Rap
13 +16 to
21 if
Perennial
39
3
0 001
Stream A
Stilling Basin
13 +37
(Permanent)
Perennial RPW
13 +37
22 if
Phase
perennial
Pipe
39
3
0 002
Stream A
to 13 +59
(Permanent)
III
Seasonal RPW
13 +91 to
309 If
Intermittent
Pipe
39
3 & 4
0 021
Stream A
17 +00
(Permanent)
Debris
Perennial RPW
Removal &
19 +65 to
35 if
Perennial
27
10
N/A
Stream B
Bank
20 +00
(Temporary)
Stabilization
FS
"• �� i�
'
0; 04.4
Str6afif Impacts (Total) =`, °"
657 If
_ `_�
-' '" n ,- ', ,- a •,!- ��dY2*�- = ,'Y,� =`'�.- "e3'.s -ice, '�,-i€ x
t Fri b
am Impacts
7k �n 3.3' =i' _'�",.�
O_ -305d
���"'f"" ""�
0 02
- Stre (Temporary),
a yak , b
r yg
52
- 0.024
J Sts ream Impacts (Permanent) _
_
If=
acre,LJ
On behalf of CMSWS, CWS is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification Application with attachments
in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No 31 and pursuant to Nationwide Permits No
27 and 39, (enclosed)
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S associated with Peterson CIP Phase III have
been limited to 43 linear feet of perennial stream channel and 309 linear feet of low quality
intermittent stream channel In addition, 270 linear feet of stream enhancement is proposed as part of
Peterson Drive SDIP Phase III
Cumulatively, a total of 614 linear feet of stream channel will be enhanced by this project This is
comprised of 344 linear feet from Phase I and 270 linear feet from Phase III This stream enhancement
will result in improved stream stability and reduced sediment input The permanently impacted stream
channel exhibits poor quality and minimal habitat Therefore, CMSWS proposes the stream
enhancement completed in Phase I (344 linear feet), and the enhancement proposed in Phase III of this
project (270 linear feet) as mitigation for all other impacts (352 linear feet) caused by the construction
of this project CMSWS believes that this project will have an overall positive effect on water quality
7

Peterson Drive Storm Drainage Improvement Project —Phase III January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Proiect No. 2013 -3231
Please do not hesitate to contact Isaac Hinson at 704 - 336 -4495 or ihinson @ci charlotte nc us should
you have any questions or comments regarding these findings
Isaac J Hi son, PWS
Wetland Specialist
Thomas J Blackwell, PWS
Senior Scientist
Enclosures Figure I USGS 7 5' Charlotte East & Charlotte West, NC Topographic Quadrangles
Figure 2 NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 3 Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 4 Service Request Location Map
Figure 5 Proposed Impacts Overview
Figure 6 Proposed Impacts
Figure 7 Proposed Impacts
Figure 8 Proposed Impacts
Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No 27 and 39
NCDWR Stream Classification Form (SCP1 to SCP3)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCPi to SCP3)
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
Representative Photographs
USACE NWP 27 Permit Verification — Phase I (Action ID SAW- 2009 - 02133)
NCDWR Water Quality Certification — Phase I (DWR# 09 -1277)
Agency Correspondence
Phase III Plan Sheets
cc Mr Mark Cantrell, U S Fish & Wildlife Service

No -n
(D ca
-0 c:
c: —1
cD (D
cn
c/)
c/)
U)
(D
:2
0
CD
SOUTH CORRIDOR
A 7r,FDi I T- 4 U -I-, ;"JR
STORM WATER PROGRAM
PETERSON DRIVE
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
WATERSHED 'C'
EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
STORM WATER REQUESTS
336•RAIN REQUESTS
EXISTING LANDUSE
EXHIBIT a I
I . TE
z
uxrnn
7 7., 7
%tTF.R

Legend
Project Limits
PFoposed Impacts
Permanent
Temporary ;
Jurisdictional Streams
Off -Site Streams
Roads
Existing Culverts / Pipes
Parcels
Buildings = -
Topography
r' Perennial RPW Stream B -
approx 35 LF Stream Bank Reconstruction (Temporary) -
Perennial RPW Stream A
approx. 22 LF Piping (Permanent)
approx. 21 LF Armor (Permanent)
- Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A
approx. 309 LF Piping (Permanent)
Figure .
- F r
Perennial RPW Stream A - PHASE I
Stream Enhancement- Complete
Perennial RPW Stream A
approx 270 LF Stream Enhancement (Temporary)
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED AND CLASSIFIED BY CWS, INC.
ON AUGUST 12, 2011. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE. 300 150 0 300 Feet
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, -
DATED 2009. STREAM AND WETLAND LAYERS GENERATED BY CWS, INC., DATED AUGUST 2011.
SCALE: 111:300' DATE: 1/15/14
FIGURE N0. Proposed Impacts - OVerV12W
I CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
Peterson C I P Phase 111 CWS 2013 -3231 TJ6
5 Charlotte, North Carolina `_ APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY
CWS Project No. 2013 -3231 WWW.CWS- INC.NET GCA

ME
728
724
BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS
ARE INITIATED, THE ENGINEER SHALL MAKE A FIELD
INSPECTION OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND GRADE
CONTROL STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF
PHASE III PROJECT LIMITS. F THE CHANNEL AND GRADE
720 CONTROL STRUCTURES ARE DETERMINED TO BE IN NEED
OF MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
PERFORM THE REPAIRS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
AND AS PROVIDED IN THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
716
712
STA. 10400 TO STA. 10.40 -
PETERSON DRIVE STORM
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
708 PHASE I PROJECT NO. 6714)4-7041
704 _T
LJ 11
L J BE
PHASE AI PROJECT LIMITS
10 +40, LINE L -1
cROUND
St
ggd
�n
m
O. G%
PROP. CHANNEL
SEE TYPICAL CHANNEL
SECTION A - SWEET 2A
sx
u
g G�$
2
RdE��ie�
F$
B�ytg
PIIOR 27 LF OF 0
�� • 54'lIG4 PROP. 27 LF
' 0.60% 4• RCP AT 200
0.50%
1
W PROPOSED GROUND. (TIP.)
. RIP RAP SIWRG BASF!
SEE ITETAL - SH EET 2A
,
II_ .III —III
POOP, 124 LF (182 V - TOTAL) -
t TIE EX 15' RCP TO OF 48' RCP AT 1.75%
, C Rep AT 2.00% MOP. SIC11
i — PROe. eg LF of I I
Inlemimcm 101i' Sircam 4
approx. 09 If Piping (Permanent Impact)
i
732
I
728
t�i U
0011
yI
PROP. CHANNEL ABOW PROP. PIPE SYSTEM
GRADE TO DRAIN INTO PROP. STCBe
SEE TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTION 8 - SHEET
y1xGt.�
T RiANtl
�sN
2A
AC5 _s�
_
a06
qq
$i iF>3
giSi i
F+i ail
GROUND TO PROPOSED GROUND
s
,
II_ .III —III
POOP, 124 LF (182 V - TOTAL) -
t TIE EX 15' RCP TO OF 48' RCP AT 1.75%
, C Rep AT 2.00% MOP. SIC11
i — PROe. eg LF of I I
Inlemimcm 101i' Sircam 4
approx. 09 If Piping (Permanent Impact)
i
732
I
728
t�i U
NN
724
Q
g �o
�-I
In
tL
T�71 V OM'i
LO
740
C6
U o
2
Uj Q H
y
_'I
o--1 ..
U) LLJ
716 W
O
U)
Z
J w
_U)
�r-
Q
712
Q
788
s
u
704
706 - '700 + o � n Perennial RI' \1 Strealn .\ n n n
E 8 8 appiov2211 pipiwu (PCrmanenl Impart) (((
10+00 11+00 12+00 14+00 15+00
Perennial RPW Slrcanl A
appro \.270 11' Lnhancemcm t I cmpm LIT Inlpacl) perennial RI'\\ Stream A
appro \.2I I f Amim (I'ci-mancm Inlpacl) SEE REAL #STATE SPECIAL
SEE SHEET 4 - -y SEE REAL ESTATE SPECIAL PRONISgNS FOR
PARCEL 6
FOR PROPOSED ; PR EFORES FOR PARCEL s BEFORE ��A
ISEE PETERSON DRIVE ITTD LINE LAA I IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTING
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS / BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 11 IMPROVEMENTS .. IMPROVEMENTS 1 O
PHASE 1 PROJECT NO.871 #704 ARE INITIATED, THE ENGINEER SHALL I A FIELD `� 1
INSPECTION OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL D GRADE
/ CONTROL STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY STREAM OF =
RELOd 75 LF2 OF S' CHAIN LW
PROSE III PROJECT LIMITS. F THE CH NN AND GRADE J FENCE J STRANDS OF BARBED
CONTROL STRUCTURES ARE DETERMIN TO BE IN NEED I W wwE A t' wwE THE PROPERTY
OF MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR, THE SHALL ' " �. # J t I PROP. S4 RCP V - Ulff e_ e
PERFORM THE REPAIRS A$ DIRECTED BY TH ENGINEER 1 # INSFALL lO1PORAR! SECURffY SECURITY
AND AS PROVIDED IN THE PROJECT SPECIAL IONS PROP. UVESTAKING (TYP.) PROP. RIP RAP SnUJNG N n _ 4 FENCE pMNf CONSIRUGTION >
- SEE DETAIL - SHEET 2A SEE DETAIL - SHEET 2A ,
R i
PROP. 54' RCP I R I CHAIN RELOCATE 14E CE IT 6'
PROP. GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE (IYP.) LINE L -1 I 4w , STRA LINK FENCE TAHI 3 ° r�gSTtJpg N
SEE SHEET 2A S lE E%, IS' RCP STRANDS OF BARBED WIRE AT OT, e10O s `rii
TO PROP. SFCB V INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE
of 2 � e e e e e I e
e e +
e e - -� Q - ° ° e e 8 ° ° r\ >nE BDE ODE �E _JOE
\ / -- -- SDE- --.- - -- SDE SDE - V V f0E - - -
sDELL stt - _ .. aDE 7n� a
cDE SUE SITE >ry I 1 LINE L -1 FQ- W 3dF
—..-
7T W = 8
STITT
r � aGyl
,\ X70 ��t°a wa 72 ' wE PRoP i "- J W LU
� R
z4,
M1
J fifi
g
PROP. S4' RCP 4 CHAIN UNN iFNCE WITH 3
/� u. 1p�L�'v,,I, 9� PROP. 48' RCP t RElACATE 74' OF 6' Q
M SrAOO 11M15 / i st i �? 1�'i( j:' Aw..,. '� , \y A m 7E �1 LINE L-1 \• 11 AT VNSIDDE BARBED WIRE C THE
soL SDI_ - -- SDE r' BOE 80E ME ME SDE J eDE SDE SDE SDE SOE SCc , T4iw � 1� S \ PROPERTY LINE C ly t
W TRUNGULA R CHANNEL 0-4 ; h
SOE�� 1 Z \ 11- ABOVi[ PROP PIPE GRADE I••I ~ > '•r
e e e TOP ! CILANNEL BANeI. (1YP.)' J e __:` e e e \. — SOE� 70EE W J �S 'I TO DRAM DUAL - SHEET 2A
TO PROP. ST M.
F+N4 ICI Q
PROP. eoTluM of CHANNEL BANK, (TYP.) x. AfOO° u r te 4 O
PROP. CHANNEL
o i W
nn f]Rx[
f 4GUSxxV fiR V I �
3119] PG 001 ```,,,ttt
nu�rr xx vZ.. oR SEE TYPICAL CHANNEL _ \ Q J Q II SEE SHEET 4 eau a ,ElRius'cx ux O a O 'Z I"I
w c _
I` 1
Q , FTNCE DURING CO/SIRUCT"M W +
1 ies CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION TO EXISTING SECTON A -SHEET 2A FORJPROPOSED INSMLL TEMPORARY SECURItt N 1 aj a 0
TREES ALONG THE CORRIDOR OF CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS ON - T. O. IMPROVEMENTS F+i E
PARCELS 1.2. AND 3 AS SHOWN ON THE
PLANS OR AS DIRECTED ISM W28 ~� O
BY THE ENGINEER THE CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT ACCESS NAIL IN 50' OAK - - W tLi E A W .,
LOCATKX4(S) AND METHODS FOR PROTECTION AND _ 1 + 95% SUBMITTAL (�x1 I'.
MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO EXISTING VEGETATION FOR c 4
REVIEW AND APPROVAL AND BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEANS. SEPTEMBER 2013
PRELIMINARY Figure
Do Not Use For Construction 6

736 736 ., REUMM OF PROP.
PLACEMENT. OWA) SEE SHEET 28
LIMITS OF PROP. ASPHALT MILUNG d I
S
J Jw J PROP. TBVB « RESURFACING. 7W. SEE SHEET 28
NCDOT STD. 640.34
ss PROP. RING d COVER pm,
B40.
732 tl� gm^� � tl � FR $ 12 +29.54, 0.00' L1 -A m. 32 RIM
1.
,� 728 O:
i6W
_ P INV OLFr 760 _
_
_ l(So. STCq
S PROP. CHANNEL ABOVE PROP. PIPE SYSTEM "4� ^o a a 8Q8Q <� $ $ Do NoT 0 sTURe PV Mq STREET DGB �l0
g p GRADE TO OR INTO PROP. STCBe 3' F S j j A, ZS i CS j j i 8• TIE IX. IS' RCP TO PROP. W U
y+Cq1 z� GROUND �zin" _ IX. 2' GL 9 `C
726 SEE TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTION B - SHEET 2A SDE rn BFT +?? " _ PROP. 6O LF OF 2' -6'+ o <
$R $ 8 _ - - - - - _ zB LINE L -jq CURB k GUTTER m �N
FILL TO PROP. GROUND �i - -_ -- 1.5074 - - - `REPLACE 16 LF OF 14Vpe G
G 3 !Vl —' — = =III- ,doe I PROP. 13 SY4 OF 6' ^� . Z
<� » _ A[Ipl( IX.2' WL WIINI 2' DIP -- ��-_ _ - - III- III =III - (CLASS 330) CONC. SIDEWNX d O 724 S L1 " ♦ i i I- rI� =I'I 1= I I I =11 11 -1 I F =I I I I I 1 =1 I 1 -III 24 UJI 20071 I�� III j y - -III III -III- ryq T_ L4 N U p,
720 =-III III —� III III - III III =III III III - _ III =jL III III - III - III 1007[= 720 ��E ~\ U + M _ _ 'I —_ �P �� 0 _ EX 2.'1OI Ox µ - W Z
�i_ I- - - - _ 'T SEE SHEET 2A ' U2 PROP. 56 LF PROP. 110 LF OF 30' RCP AT 2.007E W ��. >8 LF (162 PROP. 144 LF OF 42' RCP AT 1.007E PROP. DCB 0 CUD STD. 20.03 LF TOTAL) OF 48' REPLACE 30 LF OF e' SS - U E
RCP AY 1.758 WTIN B' DIP (CLASS 350) t REMOVE 4 IF OF EX, GRA, 1 39+86. 7WE E (LI Z 716 REPLACE JO LF OF B' S5 16 "• 15' RCP k PLUG G A 15 +38.66, TPE LT 2) NCDOi. STD. 610.71 INV. IN 721.77 (IX 15' WITH e' pP (CUSS VSO) W IW. OUT 719.2a
Lu
(n PROP. 36 IF OF {2' RCP AT 1.00% PROP. 25 LF OF
712 _ OP. 30' RCPS - SEE SHEETS 5 AND 6 DEAD END STREET PROP. 230 LF OF
Q 12 BARRICADE 30' RCP AT 2.20%
CUD STD. 50.07AdB
Intermittent K1AN Strum A PROP. END OF ROAD -
approx, ;09 It I'ipin� (Permanent Impact OD SMARKERS OaA&
706 t J
UJI
J
SEE REAL ESTATE SPECIAL t c.w si
W
PROVISIONS FOR PARCEL 6 $_
BEFORE CONSTALACTING REPLACE IX. GRAVEL 0� INSTAi 7EMPOPARI SECURITY I I o
IMPROVEMENTS PARKING LOTS DISTURBED FENCE WRING IX)NSiRUCT10N
C BY CONSTRUCTION OF THE ~ - SEE REAL ESTATE SPECIAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND AS
._A PROVSION5 FOR PARCEL 4
DIRECTED BY THE �� BEFORE CONSIRUCNNG
ENGINEER '"'`:� REPLACE SD LF OF IX. 8': WL Q J� MPROVEMENTS �NNUmN�
RESET IX. SHED TO - IDCARON RELOCATE 77 LFt OF e' CNAN UNK WITH 6' OP(ClASS 33(1)
OR AS DIRECTED BY THE GINEER FENCE WITH 3 STRANDS OF BARBED REPLACE 3O If OF 6' SS WITH (,�
WIRE WRAPPED WRAP CONCERTINA WIRE �'� r ..w r a
OCATE 15 LFt OF IX CHAIN LINK FENCE AT V INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE e' DIP (CLASS 350)
° WITH 3 STRANDS OF MIRE WRAPPED WITH INSTALL TEMPO= SECURITY REMOVE IX STRUCTURES (2) k ! co y O in I
CONCERTINA WIRE FENCE WRING CONSTRUCTION JB lF.! OF IX. 24' R 30 RCM i Q `. $
NOT DISTURB IX PET! SEE MPROVDAENIS CVl 111 PROP. 54 RCP
SEE REAL ESTATE SPECIAL PRONSONS FOR PARCEL 71 LIMITS OF PROP,- ASP/NLT r(fI bI
PROVISIONS FOR PARCEL 10 �� �1R�� REPLACEMENT - SEE SHEET 2
Qj TE 73 LFt OF e' CLAN LINK BEFORE CONSTRUCTING N:
FEN E WITH 3 STRANDS OF BAKED IMPROVEMENTS
WI WRAPPED WITH CONCERTINA MIRE REMOVE IX. $TRIKTUREd DO NOT DISTURB I °
+ ° @ ° AT 111510E THE PROPERTY LINE 56 LFt OF IX. 307 RCP EX. 2'. GAS LINE PROP. 54' RC
1
e ° ° ° 18
B I a
6 sx SDE z e e e e e
15 3 " . —" —. —" LINE L 1 3 e -
co W _ -x —_ _ "— — " —" — "— —* soE SDE
_ - "
r 90
W = 4.ro _ -__ _te.ao Op 2 7 I I WE +\ —N�_ — 90E SDE --�i -- SDE
SOE
Z f4 _ mow- LINE Ne�� 7n x x`x— "gin " — "'= —" — >
L'1 7j �-w- la. "
J W PROP. vP (1 - 0 774 `y n
Ci fW n SM, SDE SDE SDE w.
42' RCP I1eip B rL71
DE SDE SDE SIDE SDE SDE S a � I �
PROP. 42' RCP PROP. 42' RCP
SDE^ —
_ 9 E
C 0 � PROP. iRVHOUTAR CHANNEL 01"'1 p 1ti 724 72
C RE IX. 6' CARP
ABOVE PROP. PIPE R FME1R - 2 1oF ,(Iy1,y e e
LIGHT LE TO BE RELOCATED GRADE TO DRAIN TO PROP.
10 DI /s BY RS STCII . SEE DETAIL - SHEET U J
DO IIOf DISTURB � / 00 LOT IX. POWER POLE - i PROP. SI' RCP 4
IX. POWER POLE lJ ` =71 PROP. 48' RCP
REMOVE Ex. STRUCTURES PROP. CONC. SIDEWALK TW. Ts .-_n 71 YS la LINE L -1 ?�
R14TALL TEWOP.NY SECIXITY / AND IX, 30' RCP �� Oq p �"+. -�, �1 , J PROP. 8• I OF
FENCE WRWG WNSTRUCIION �CLD STD. 10W2M PROP. 2' -6. CURB o 1 m m
GUTTER. TW. ,G / .. z 2{' RCP AT 5.00% g 1 3 0 0
* /
TEMPORARILY
RELOCATE EX. SHED T[ TO IX. PK/LOi� \ SOE �1s PROP. STCB O
WITHIN SECURED SOE� CLD STD. 20.05A Q.a yi
FENCING DURING SEE RFN. ESTATE SPECIAL SOE� t:t . Ru1G d COVER o zg
CONSTRUCTION O. PROVISIONS FOR PARCEL 9
Y I
IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTING ® - C e Z Iqa
1 t RIM 1 e SLAB RT l I
TH T MV. 722.84 • .
e W J PoN/TOB SLAB 723.4} C:u
MV. IN 720.34
MV. OUT 717.60
DO NOT DISTURB EX. POWER ® - ~ 7 r
I O PROP. ENO OF ROAD MARKERS (5)
INSTALL TEMPORARY SECURITY POLE nRE HYDRANT, OR - N �' CLD STD. 50.OBABB W 1"R m +
RELOCATE 8' CHAIN A LINK FENCE I FENCE AND GATE DURING CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE 00
WITH 3 GATES S � Y CONSTRUCTION 3 y! / a 0.0 W > -•
BOUNDARY AFTER WNS'TRUCnON �l lya9 PROP. 25 LF OF DEAD ENO STREET BARRICADE
OF PROPOSED s e x CUD SID. 50.07AdB A o'�
IMPROVEMENTS
No
REPLACE IX. GRAVEI I 7 O 5
. o
PARKING LOT. SEED. TBM 62
NAIL IN a G7a .� N
In
OAIG ` 724.87 AFTER ELEV=
IMPROVEMENTS
HAVE SEE SHEET 8
BEEN CONSTRUCTED I FOR EAST DINE PROPOSFJDN FOR EAST CAMA
DRIVE
AV IMPROVEMENTS ° �'(�G PROPOSED L -2 955% SUBMITTAL
! / V�Q/ V IMPROVEMENTS
e �pSjypQ } SEPTEMBER 2013
PRELIMINARY -
L -1 PLAN AND PROFILE LAA & L -113 PLAN DoNOtUseForConstruction

MATCH LINE STA. 18 +00 MATCH LINE STA. 18 +00
SEE SHEET 9 SEE SHEET 9
711.0 $ # 9 H
iz
PROP. rea
+ 709.7 NCOOT STD. 840.46
\
PROP. TRANS d[ GRATE
NCDOr +57.2
F 1 GRATE ELEV.
OUT 709.13
INV.
INV. OUT 702.00
I o^
/I 710.4 a I.
�_K�
511 � d i T �A I �• \ Y�+
V, ' e 711.0
i5
E t OD o P TBD ,1 ROP
- � \ N000T RA 840.46
1' N000T 940.24 CRATE
'$ 712.0 STA 19 +2266 0.00' L-4
RN. IN 705.72 (EK.)
m a 1 P;q amRCp 3 9N. IN 704.90
_ PtT?ttv. I
�u
I+ 7173 I
ME 15;
706.6 I _:
ELLENWOOD PLACE
50' PUBLIC R/W 1
(ASPHALT) Qo »= w
N
WWI 1r (D 707.2 _
� 3
aa 0�716S 707.4 _. -.
Mil
vey I
•O/�\ I l rn 0 707.7 _
_sue I
t
,y
6 sE
51 / 'S5j \� 707.9
Co II
s
708.2
708.6 I
709.4 I
l
6� 7�
709.5
m i 8
' I 1
N v
0vc m
90>
"- OAui 3
(v 3Z
ac DEWITT LN.
cn
PUBLIC RNV VARIES p �"
AnmTD
c o (ASPHALT)- s <_ r Z 5
O mmwm 0 �
Z y
3 Zm'
N p0
cm
air
r ,1
Z °3
<SZ
m 0
N
O
r
w
Co
c
PETERSON DRIVE
SDIP - PHASE III
030213
"NO..
1- -20• H/1• -4' V
SCALE
U a �11�
�`/ '
�—"
DESCRIPTION
PLANS PREPARED Bt:
vSI USINFRASTRVCTIIRE
OF CAROLINA, INC.
��
DIRECTORY
CAD FILE
S.'CRYON STREET
IC, Rw
SPH
PREPARED BY
I
��+"a +'
MANAGEMENT
°'
LINE L -=1
STA. I8 +00 TO STA. 22 +00
CHECKEDBY
1043 E MOREHEAD STREET, SUITE 203
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28204
I N.C. LICENSE If C -1950
5PH
1 APPROYEDBY
11 -27 -13
DATE

O�0F W A Tfg0G
1 1 >
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit F-1 Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 and 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
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
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Peterson Storm Drainage Improvement Project - Phase III
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
City of Charlotte
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
16094 -82
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d.
Street address:
3750 South Boulevard
3e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28217
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
❑ Agent ® Other, specify City of Charlotte
4b
Name
Mr Isaac Hinson, PWS
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS)
4d
Street address
600 East Fourth Street
4e
City, state, zip
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
4f
Telephone no
704 - 336 -4495
4g
Fax no
704 - 336 -6586
4h
Email address
ihinson @charlottenc gov
5
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
5c
Street address
5d
City, state, zip
5e
Telephone no
5f
Fax no
5g
Email address
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
multiple
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 35188916 Longitude -
80 879806
(DD DDDDDD) ( -DD DDDDDD)
1c
Property size
76 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc ) to
proposed project
Irwin Creek
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
Class C
2c
River basin
Catawba /Santee (HUC # 03050103)
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Project Description
3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
The project area is approximately 76 acres in extent and consists of a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial
land uses, with small adjacent wooded areas Typical on -site vegetation includes sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
willow oak (Quercus phellos), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), kudzu (Puerana montana), fescue (Festuca spp ), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica)
3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
0
3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
1,227 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The purpose of the Peterson Drive SDIP (all phases) is to alleviate the flooding of streets, properties and structures by
improving storm drainage infrastructure and to enhance on -site degraded stream channels The need for this project was
identified through the City of Charlotte's South Corridor Infrastructure Priontization Process Figure 4 (attached) shows
the location of service requests to CMSWS located within the project area
Phase I — Completed Phase I of this project was approved in 2009 (USAGE Action ID 2009 - 02133, DWR# 09 -1277) and has
been completed The purpose of this phase of the project was to improve the quality of Perennial RPW Stream A This
was necessary as the channel was incised and eroding and therefore a source of sediment pollution This phase of this
project consisted of the enhancement of 362 LF of Perennial RPW Stream A These enhancements were completed in
2011 and extend from the downstream extent of the Phase III enhancements to the S Tryon Street culvert Since
completion, portions of the enhanced stream have exhibited instability, including bank erosion and structure failure
These areas will be addressed during construction of Phase III
Phase III The purpose of this phase of the project is to reduce flooding through pipe system upgrades and to enhance
approximately 270 linear feet of currently degraded stream channel located downstream of Henot Avenue The greatest
impact to jurisdictional waters will result from the installation of approximately 309 linear feet of pipe within the existing
Seasonal RPW Stream A located between Henot Avenue and East Cama Street and 22 linear feet of pipe within the
existing Perennial RPW Stream A located dust downstream of Henot Avenue (Figure 5, attached) The purpose of this
pipe installation is to reduce flooding The installation of pipe at this location is necessary as there are several structures
and buildings located immediately adjacent to the channel that are subject to flooding
The purpose of the proposed stream enhancement located downstream of Heriot Avenue is to improve stream stability,
habitat, and function within the stream reach This is necessary as the stream is currently incised, and displays raw,
eroding banks, minimal habitat for aquatic life, and evidence of extensive sediment input
3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
This project will involve the replacement of existing stormwater pipes, the placement of approximateey 309 linear feet of
proposed pipe upstream of Henot Drive and 22 linear feet of proposed pipe downstream of Henot Drive, and the
construction of an approximately 21 linear feet long rip rap stilling basin at the outfall of the proposed pipe outlet
downstream of Henot Drive to dissipate the energy of the water exiting the pipe There will also be 35 linear feet of
temporary impact to Perennial Stream B at the end of Ellenwood Drive as the result of rebuilding the existing rip rap
armored channel bank that has become clogged with debris
In addition, approximately 270 linear feet of currently degraded stream channel located downstream of Henot Avenue will
be enhanced by laying back of the stream banks, matting and planting the banks, and the installation of cross vanes to
act as grade control structures
A track hoe and other typical construction equipment will be used to construct this project
Page 4 of 13
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 E] No Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the pasty
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
Phase I of this project was approved in 2009 (USAGE Action ID 2009 - 02133, DWR# 09 -1277) and has been completed
Copies of these authorizations are attached The purpose of this phase of the project was to improve the quality of
Perennial RPW Stream A This was necessary as the channel was incised and eroding and therefore a source of
sediment pollution This phase of this project consisted of the enhancement of 362 LF of Perennial RPW Stream A
These enhancements were completed in 2011 and extend from the downstream extent of the Phase III enhancements to
the S Tryon Street culvert Since completion, portions of the enhanced stream have exhibited instability, including bank
erosion and structure failure These areas will be addressed during construction of Phase III
6 Future Project Plans
6a Is this a phased project?
® Yes ❑ No
6b If yes, explain
Phase I was previously permitted and consisted of stream enhancement Phase II (Scaleybark Detention Facility) was
determined to be a stand alone, single and complete project Phase III is necessary to alleviate flooding of properties
between East Cama Street and Henot Avenue Impacts and Enhancements from Phase III will be considered cumulative
with those from Phase I
Page 5 of 13
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 ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h Comments
3 Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Pipe
Seasonal RPW
❑ PER
® Corps
3
309
Stream A
® INT
® DWQ
S2 ® P ❑ T
Pipe
Perennial RPW
® PER
® Corps
3
22
Stream A
❑ INT
® DWQ
S3 ®P ❑ T
Rip Rap Stilling
Perennial RPW
® PER
® Corps
3
21
Basin
Stream A
❑ INT
® DWQ
S4 ❑ P ® T
Enhancement
Perennial RPW
Stream A
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
3
270
S5 ❑ P ® T
Debris Removal &
Perennial RPW
® PER
® Corps
3
35
Bank Stabilization
Stream B
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
657
31 Comments Permanent Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams total 309 If (0 021 acre) of Intermittent Stream and 43 If of
Perennial Stream (0 003 acre)
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

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
4b
4c
4d
4e
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4E Total open water impacts
4g Comments
5 Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5E Total
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
51 Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If 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
B1 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

D Impact Justification and Mitigation
1 Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U S have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable Permanent
impacts, consisting of a pipe extension and energy dissipater, total 309 linear feet of poor quality intermittent stream channel
and 43 linear feet of perennial stream channel The new pipe was determined to be the least damaging and only practicable
design option that will achieve the flood control goals of the project Other alternatives included various combinations of
shorter pipe extensions and channel enhancements Due to the highly impervious existing and future watershed conditions,
the system is has a very flashy hydrology There are also multiple structures and buildings immediately adjacent to the
upstream portion of the channel In addition to getting flooded, these structures provide lateral constraints that preclude
stream enhancement alternatives that could provide flood control benefits The proposed pipe will convey most storm events
beyond the nearby businesses located along the upstream reach, to the mostly vacant and wooded downstream reach The
exact downstream extent of the pipe extension was designed to ensure that the drainage improvements extend beyond the
currently flooding structures and the existing undersized culvert located within the Henot Avenue right -of -way These extents
ensure minimal impacts to the downstream perennial portion of Stream A, which provides more habitat and functional value
than the upstream intermittent reach, which is more impacted by human encroachment, such as direct storm water
connections, lot grading, fences, and buffer disturbances
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U S have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters All work will be constructed in the
dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification No 3885 and 3890
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
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
® Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3 Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c Comments
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h Comments
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
•
A total of 614 linear feet of stream channel will be enhanced by this project This enhancement is comprised of 344 linear
feet of Perennial Stream from Phase I and 270 linear feet of Perennial Stream from Phase III The proposed stream
enhancment consists of profile enhancements through the installation of cross - vanes, bank stabilization, and the
installation of native woody vegetation to promote bank stability Stream banks will be laid back and matted with
biodegradabel coir fibre matting The banks will then be planted with native woody species that provide vigorous root
growth
CMSWS will visually monitor and photo document the the stream enhancement for a period of five years Any failures or
areas of concern that are identified during this monitoring period will be addressed in a timely fashion The project site
will also be managed for invasive species during the monitoring period to ensure the successful establishment of native
vegetaion
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
❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
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
6c
6d
6e
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(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 9of13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

�E
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
<20 %
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why There is no change in impervious cover
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan
® Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ 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
❑ HQW
4a
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
lb
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)?
1c
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter )
Comments
2
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 26 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
N/A
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5
Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a
Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
❑ Asheville
5d
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) on August 15, 2011 to determine the
presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area In a response letter dated August 23, 2011 (attached), the NCNHP stated that "The NCNHP has no record of rare
species, significant natural communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation /managed areas at the site nor
within a mile of the project area"
In addition, the NCNHP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database Virtual Workroom and Element Occurrence
(EO) database was reviewed for a listing of EOs of endangered or threatened species within or near the project area The
EO database identified no endangered or threatened species within a two -mile radius of the project area
6
Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries http / /sharpfin nmfs noaa gov /website /EFH_Mapper /map aspx
7.
Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a
Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ 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?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on August 15, 2011 to determine the presence of
any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project In a response
dated August 29, 2011 (attached), the SHPO stated that "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 "
8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b
If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM 3710453200J
1/31/14
Mr Isaac Hinson, PWS
Date
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

VC filiJ67(1 Straam TdiPntifira¢ inn Fnrm Vercinn 4.11
Date:
Project/Site 6 er-50 V-1 Ci e
Latitude: N35 188916
Evaluator: N
County- 2C
Longitude. W80 879806
Total Points:
Stream Determination (clrQlaonel
Other SCP 1
Stream is at least intermittent '3
Ephemeral intermittent Perennla
e g Quad Name: Per Stream A
if z 19 or perennial rf >_ 30"
1
2
A Geomorphology (Subtotal =
0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 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
t21
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
Cop—
V
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1
FACW = 0 75, OBL = 1 5
10 Natural valley
0
1 05
1
5
11 Second or greater order channel
No UO
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
R W r4 rr%1f% 1CZ"h +n +nI = R' I— i
,y a7 \............... - i
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
3
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0 5
21 Aquatic Mollusks
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
3
15
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
3
r` Rinlnn\d t_Q ih +n +!2I = k .!&- 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
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
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
Cop—
1
15
25 Algae
05
1
15
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
Sketch

XTd" T1E7i" 04. --.,.« Vnrm VPreinvn A 11
Date:
Project/Site 6er. CIe
Latitude:N35 188916
Evaluator: `� -� .�, I<
H
County. 2C L CJu-(
Longitude:W80 879806
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other SCP2
Stream is at least Intermittent (Q . �,'
Ephemeral <arm a Perennial
e g Quad Name: Int Stream A
if a 19 or eerennial If >_ 30' C�
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
A Geomorphology (Subtotal = D )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
M
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
0
0
2
3
—ripple-pool
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
05
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
CD
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1
1 5
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
1 5
11 Second or greater order channel
No no
Yes = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
Q L..iv14 innv /Qi'kf_fnl - X.• "1 si N
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
3
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
3
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
Yes = 3
r% Qir,innv /0 ih4n + 1 - L/ 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
CV
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
CO)
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
05
1
1 15
25 Algae
0
05
1
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.
Sketch

W DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: g _ 6 , j �
ProjecllSite �� �
Latitude: ?,P . I G' �'410
Evaluator: T:s � -t. 1< M
County
2CtL
Longitude: 27V
Total Points:
Stream Determination (ci one )
Other SCP 3
Stream is at least intermittent
I.Ephemeral Intermittent Perennia
e g Quad Name: Per Stream B
if a 19 or perennial if Z 30'
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool se uence
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I E;'s )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
11" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thaiweg
U5
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool se uence
0
1
(2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
W
3
8 Headcuts
1 5
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1
(1'5)
10. Natural valley
0
05
(ij
1 1 5
11 Second or greater order channel
No fo
Yes = 3
s artificial ditches are not rated, see disc ions in manual
R Hvrirnlnnv (Siihtntal = 1
v-• - -� P %- - - - ---
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
U5
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1 5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
15
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
(' Rinlnnv (Suhtntal = YA'.k 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
0
0
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
Co
1
1 5
25. Algae
05
1
1 1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75, OR[
5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes o. (-+ �a.
ov<c.
lip
Sketch

OFFICE USE ONLY USACE AiD# DWQ #
SCP1— Perennial RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .
1 Applicant's Name CSWS 2 Evaluator's Name Thomas Blackwell
3 Date of Evaluation 8 -16 -11 4 Time of Evaluation 9 15 AM
5 Name of Stream Perennial Stream A 6 River Basin Catawba (HU# 03050103)
7 Approximate Drainage Area 62 acres 8 Stream Order first
9 Length of Reach Evaluated 1,114 feet 10 County Mecklenburg
11 Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks)
12 Site Coordinates (if known) N35 1889160, W80 8798060
13 Proposed Channel Work (if any) N/A
14 Recent Weather Conditions Warm, rain in the last 48 hrs
15 Site conditions at time of visit Sunny, 75°
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 pomt9 YES 9 If yes, estimate the water surface area
18 Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES & 19 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20 Estimated Watershed Land Use 30 % Residential 70% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
21 Bankfull Width 5' 22 Bank Height (from bed to top of bank) 4'
23 Channel slope down center of stream _Flat (0 to 2 %) x Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24 Channel Sinuosity Straight x Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e g , the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality
Total Score (from reverse): 45 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature e� Date 08/16/2011
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03 To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1— Perennial RPW Stream A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
no flow or saturation = 0, strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0, no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
no buffer = 0, contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
4
extensive discharges = 0, no discharges = max oints
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
Uno
discharge = 0, springs, see s, wetlands, etc = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
no flood lam = 0, extensive flood lam = max points)
�
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
00
(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 oints
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
2
fine homogenous = 0, large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
>0
(deeply incised = 0, stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
1
severe erosion = 0, no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
F
no visible roots = 0, dense roots throughout = max points
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 4
0-5
4
15
substantial impact =0, no evidence = max points)
—
Presence of riffle- poot/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
16
no raffles/ripples or pools = 0, well-developed = max oints
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
3
or no habitat = 0, frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0, continuous canopy = max oints
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
0
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max oints
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0, common, numerous es = 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
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

OFFICE USE ONLY USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 — Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 9 .
1 Applicant's Name CSWS 2 Evaluator's Name Thomas Blackwell
3 Date of Evaluation 8 -16 -11 4 Time of Evaluation 9 30 AM
5 Name of Stream Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A 6 River Basin Catawba (HU# 03050103)
7 Approximate Drainage Area 32 acres 8 Stream Order first
9 Length of Reach Evaluated 307 feet 10 County Mecklenburg
11 Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks)
12 Site Coordinates (if known) N35 1889160, W80 8798060
13 Proposed Channel Work (if any) N/A
14 Recent Weather Conditions Warm, rain in the last 48 hrs
15 Site conditions at time of visit Sunny, 75°
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 point9 YES ® If yes, estimate the water surface area
18 Does channel appear on USGS quad map9 YES NO 19 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9 YE NO
20 Estimated Watershed Land Use 30 % Residential 70% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
21 Bankfull Width 3' 22 Bank Height (from bed to top of bank) 5'
23 Channel slope down center of stream x Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24 Channel Sinuosity x Straight _Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e g , the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality
Total Score (from reverse): 21 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature , t; K &""""" Date 08/16/2011
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03 To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 — Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
no flow or saturation = 0, strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
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
1
extensive discharges = 0, no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
0
no discharge = 0, springs, see s, wetlands, etc = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplam
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
1
no flood lam = 0, extensive flood lam = max points)
a
Entrenchment / floodplam access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
0
dee 1 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
0
extensive channelization = 0, natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extenswe deposition= 0, little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
1
fine, homogenous = 0 large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
1
>0
(deeply incised = 0, stable bed & banks = max points)
00 F4
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
1
*4
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
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
substantial impact =0, no evidence = max omts
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well-developed = max points)
F
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
little or no habitat = 0, frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0, continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
0
(deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
no evidence = 0 common, numerous es = max oints
E23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0, abundant evidence = max point s
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
21
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

OFFICE USE ONLY USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP3 — Perennial RPW Stream B
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET�y
1 Applicant's Name CSWS 2 Evaluator's Name Thomas Blackwell
3 Date of Evaluation 8 -16 -11 4 Time of Evaluation 8 00 AM
5 Name of Stream Perennial Stream B 6 River Basm Catawba (HU# 03050103)
7 Approximate Drainage Area 80 acres 8 Stream Order first
9 Length of Reach Evaluated 1,665 feet 10 County Mecklenburg
11 Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks)
12 Site Coordinates (if known) N35 1930710, W80 882773 °
13 Proposed Channel Work (if any) N/A
14 Recent Weather Conditions Warm, rain in the last 48 hrs
15 Site conditions at time of visit Sunny, 700
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 pointy YES 9 If yes, estimate the water surface area
18 Does channel appear on USGS quad map? OF, NO 19 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9 YE NO
20 Estimated Watershed Land Use 50 % Residential 50% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
21 Bankfull Width 24' 22 Bank Height (from bed to top of bank) 5'
23 Channel slope down center of stream X Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24 Channel Sinuosity X Straight _Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e g, the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality
Total Score (from reverse): 39 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature e� &"'"""' Date 08/16/2011
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03 To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP3 — Perennial RPW Stream B
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
2
no flow or saturation = 0, strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
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)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
Uno
discharge = 0 springs, see s, wetlands, etc = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no flood lam = 0, extensive flood lam = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplam access
0-5
0-4
0-2
1
a
(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
0
extensive channehzation = 0, natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0, little or no sediment = max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
2
fine, homogenous = 0, large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
3
>-,
(deeply incised = 0, stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0 no erosion, stable banks = max points)
d
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
no visible roots = 0, dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
substantial impact =0 no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0, well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
little or no habitat = 0, frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
3
no shading vegetation = 0, continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
no evidence = 0 common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max p omts
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0, abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
39
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site Peterson CIP Phase III City /County Mecklenburg Sampling Date 08/16/11
ApplicanUOwner Charlotte Storm Water Services State NC Sampling Point DP1
Investigator(s) Thomas Blackwell, PWS, and Kelly Hines Section, Township, Range Charlotte, NC
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) None Slope ( %) 0 -2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA Lat N35 188916° Long W80 879806 Datum NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name Cecil -Urban land complex, 2 -8% slopes (CuB) NWI classification N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil , 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 Present9 Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Area Is representative of a non- jurisdictional upland area
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) _
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —
Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (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 (65)
_
Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_
Shallow Aquitard (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) >18"
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
No Indicators of wetland hydrology were present at the sampling point
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point DP1
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of the dominant species are FAC or wetter Vegetation passes the dominance
test for hydrophytic vegetation
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dom i nance Test worksheet
'Tree Stratum (Plot size )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Liquldambar styraclflua
30
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 11 (A)
2
Llnodendron tullplfera
30
Yes
FAC
3
Po ulus deltoides
p
30
Yes
FAC
Total Number of Dominant 12
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Betula nigra
20
No
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 92% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
Total % Cover of Multiply by
8
110
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
Ligustrum smense
20
Yes
FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2
Rosa multiflora
20
Yes
UPL
FACU species x 4 =
3
Fraxlnus pennsylvamca
10
Yes
FACW
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
_
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
�
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
1
Toxicodendron radlcans
15
Yes
FAC
2
Parthenocissus qulnquefolia
15
Yes
FAC
3
Elymus vlrglnicus
10
Yes
FAC
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Carex sp
5
No
--
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
6
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
10
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
12
50
= Total Cover
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
)
height
1
Toxicodendron radlcans
10
Yes
FAC
2
Vltls rotundlfolla
10
Yes
FAC
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6
Present? Yes No
20
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of the dominant species are FAC or wetter Vegetation passes the dominance
test for hydrophytic vegetation
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)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -4
5YR 3/3
100
N/A
Sandy Loam
4 -12
7 5YR 4/3
100
N/A
Sandy Loam
12+
2 5Y 5/3
100
N/A
Sandy Loam
'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Sod Indicators
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
2Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrx
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
Remarks
No Indicators of hydrlc soils are present
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Peterson SDIP — Phase III January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Project No. 2013 -3231
Photograph A. View of Perennial RPW Stream A, facing downstream
Photograph B. View of Perennial RPW Stream A, facing upstream toward Heriot Ave. culvert

Peterson SDIP — Phase III January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Proiect No. 2013 -3231
Photograph C. View of Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A, facing upstream
Photograph D. View of Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A, facing downstream

Peterson SD1P — Phase III January 31, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 27 and 39 Project No. 2013 -3231

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID SAW- 2009 -02133 County: Mecklenburg USGS Quad: Charlotte West
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, Att'n: Isaac
Hinson
Address: 600 East Fourth St.
Charlotte, NC 28202 -2844
Telephone No :
Size and location of pi operty (water body, road name/number, town, etc ) • Peterson Drive CIP located
east of the intersection of Peterson Drive and South Tryon St.; in south Charlotte
Description of protects area and activity: This permit authorizes impacts to 362 LF of a degraded
reach of a UT -Irwin Creek in association with stream enhancement activities. The work will
include: installing grade control, remo-ving blockages installing floodplain benching, and stabdizing
ongoing bank erosion utilizing native vegetation plantings.
Applicable Law- ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization Regional General Permit Number
Nationwide Permit Numbei 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced pernut provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached conditions and your submitted plans Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your
submitted plans may subject the pernuttee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization
is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit
authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified
below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide pemut. If the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, of is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with
the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i e , are under construction) or
ate under contract to commence in iehance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity
is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification of revocation,
unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or tevoke the
authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N C Division of Coastal Management
This Department of the Amiy verification does not relieve the perimttee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local approvals /pernuts
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers legulatory program, please contact Steve Chapin at 828 - 271 -7980
Corps Regulatory Official Steve Chapin Date: December 15, 2009
Expiration Date of Verification December 15, 2011_

f
The Wilmington Distinct is comunitted to providing the highest level of support to the public To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
hqp //www saw usace armxmil /WETLANDS /index.litml to complete the survey online
Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ❑ Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above
described project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Admrmstrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the
permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a
per rod not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
C. ® There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years
from the date of this notification.
D. ❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action
Please reference jurisdictional determination issued _. Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: The site contains a stream channel that exhibits indicators of ordinary high
water marks The stiearn channel on the property is an unnamed tnbutaiy to Irwin Creek which flows into the
Catawba River and ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean through the Irwin Creek>Sugai Creek> Catawba River
system which is a Section 10 navigable -mn -fact waterway at Lake Wylie.
Appeals Information: (This information does not apply to prelimmaiy determinations as indicated by paragraph A
above)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination, If you are not in agreement with that
approved _jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331 Enclosed you will
find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal WA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address.
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attu- Steve Chapin, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps roust determine that it is complete, that it meets the
criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of
the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address within 60
days from the Issue Date below
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the deteimnation in this
correspondence. **
Corps Regulatory Official _Steve Chanrn
Issue Date. December 15, 2009
Expuatron Date- Five years from Issue Date
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC.,
MUST BE ATTACHED TO TIE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Furnished: STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates (Mike Iagnocco),1000 W. Morehead St., Suite
200, Charlotte, NC 28208

Pennit Number- SAW - 2009 -02133
Permit Type NW27
Name of County: Mecklenburg
Name of Permittee: Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, Att'n: Isaac Hinson
Date of Issuance- December 15, 2009
Project Manager: Steve Chapin
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this pennit and any mitigation required by the
permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attention: CESAW -RG -A
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this pennit you are subject to
permit suspension, modification, or revocation
I hei eby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced pennit has been completed in
accordance with the terns and conditions of the said pennit, and required mitigation was
completed in accordance with the permit conditions
Signature of Permittee
Date

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
January 11, 2010
DWQ# 09 -1277
Mecklenburg County
Mr. Isaac Hinson
City of Charlotte, Stormwater Services
600 East Fourth St
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject: Peterson Drive CIP, Charlotte
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr Hinson
You have our approval, in accordance with the general certification and those conditions listed below,
to impact 344 linear feet (If) of unnamed stream to Irwin Creek in order to enhance/ the stream in Mecklenburg
County, as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on December 1,
2009. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this project is covered by Water Quality
General Certification Number 3689, which can be viewed on our web site at
http Hh2o enr state nc us /ncwetlands The General Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number
27 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.
The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing once construction at the approved impact areas
has commenced.
2. Storm water discharge structures at this site 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.
3 No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the
footprint of the impacts depicted in the Preconstruction Notification application. All construction activities
associated with this project shall meet, and /or exceed, those requirements specified in the most recent
Mooresville Regional Office one
Location 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115 NorthCarolina
Phone [phone]Tax (704) 663 -60401 Customer Service 1 -877- 623 -6748 ��t��+� "yJ
Internet www ncwaterguality org a/
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycledtl0% Post Consumer Paper

version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual and shall be conducted so that no
violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4 Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality
5 Continuing Compliance The applicant (City of Charlotte) 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.0 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,
/ - 6t
for Coleen H Sullins
Attachments
cc Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Ian McMillan, Wetlands Unit
MRO, Land Quality

0 .
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Claudia Brown, Acting Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 29, 2011
Sarah Singleton
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Division of Histoncal Resources
David Brook, Director
Re- Peterson Capital Improvement Project Phase II and III, Charlotte, CWS 2011 -2833,
Mecklenburg County, ER 11 -1619
Dear Ms. Singleton
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2011, 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 pl.oposed.
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- 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
,/Claudia Brown
Location 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Marling Address 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Pax (919) 407 - 6570/807 -6599

f�
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Conservation, Planning, & Community Affairs
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Linda Pearsall, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
August 23, 2011
Ms Sarah Singleton
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
Subject Peterson Capital Improvement Project Phase 11 and III, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
CWS Project No 2011 -2833
Dear Ms Singleton
The Natural Het stage Pi ogram has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage ateas, of conservation /managed areas at the site not within a mile of the project area
Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements to the project area, it does not
necessarily mean that they ate not present It may simply mean that the atea has not been surveyed The
use of Natural Het stage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural
areas
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www ncnhp org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities to the county and on the quad map Our
Program also has a new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location-
<http : / /nhpweb enr state.nc us /public /virtual_wotkroom phtml> The user name is "guest" and the
password is your e -mail address (see instructions on log -in screen). You may want to click "Help" for
more information
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919- 715 -8697 if you have questions or need further information
Sincerely,
Harry E LeGrand, Jr , Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
One
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601 NorthCarolina
Phone: 919 - 715 -4195 \ FAX- 919 - 715 -3060 Internet: www.oneNCNaturally.org Adturially
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper Natural Resources Planning and Conservown