20140771 Ver 1_401 Application_20140714

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1.Pro'ect Name:
Blenhein Storm Water Project
2.Name of Applicant:
Charlotte-M.ecklenburg Storm Water Services Mr. Greg Cole
3.Name of Consultant /Agent:
HDR Engine ,Inc. of the Carolinas Mr. Eric Mularski
* Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4.Related /Previous Action ID numbers
NIA
5.Site Address
6.Subdivision Name:
Thomasboro Neighborhood
7.Ci :
Charlotte
8.Count :
Mecklenburg
9. Lat:
N 35.261
Long:
W - 80.881
Decimal De rees Please
10.Quadran le Name:
Mountain Island Lake
11.Waterwa :
Stewart Creek Tributary #2 and Unnamed Tributary to Stewart Creek Tributary #2
12.Watershed:
Catawba HUC:03050103
13.Re uested Action:
-4
® Nationwide Permit #
3 & 27
159MM
❑ General Permit ND QUALITY
$T
® Jurisdictional Verification Request
FER PERMITTINQ
❑ Pre-Application Request
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 2014
DENR -LAND QUALITY
STORMWATER PERMITTING

July 22, 2014
Mr Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U S Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
N C Division of Water Resources
WBSCP Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Re Blenhein Storm Water Project
Nationwide Permit (3 and 27) Request
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern
HDR Engineering, Inc of the Carolinas (HDR), on behalf of our client, Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water
Services (CMSWS), is requesting authorization under a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 3 (Maintenance) and a
NWP 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities) for activities associated
with the Blenhein Storm Water Project in Mecklenburg County (Figure 1 and Figure 2)
Proiect Description
The purpose of the Blenhein Storm Water Project is to improve the performance of the existing neighborhood
storm drainage system, upgrade the capacity of the two culvert crossings ( Blenhein Road and South Hoskins
Road), and enhance aquatic habitat and water quality by restoring and enhancing Stewart Creek Tributary #2
(Tributary #2) and creating an adjacent floodp'lain wetland to attenuate storm water flows
Jurisdictional Waters of the US
HDR performed a field assessment to document jurisdictional waters of the U.S within the Project Area
(Figure 3) The area was examined applying the methodology described in the U S Army Corps of Engineers
( USACE) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, USACE Post - Rapanos guidance, the recent USACE Interim
Regional Supplement, and the N C Division of Water Quality (DWQ) guidance Completed USACE forms,
DWQ forms, and representative photographs are attached No jurisdictional wetlands were identified within'the
Project Area Table 1 is a summary of delineated features
HDR Engineering, Inc ofthe Carolinas 1 440 S Church Street I Phone [phone]
Suite 1000 Fax [phone]
Charlotte, NC-28202- 1919 www hdnnc com

Table 1. Summary of Waters of the U.S.
Feature
Classification
USACE Score
DWQ Score
Stewart Creek
RPW with Perennial Flow
37
35
Tributary #2
UT to Stewart Creek
RPW with Seasonal Flow
31
27.5
Tributary #2
NWP 3 Impacts
Maintenance activities including culvert replacement and associated stabilization structures will result in
permanent fill impacts to jurisdictional waters. The proposed storm water infrastructure has been designed in
accordance with the current Charlotte - Mecklenburg storm drainage system design standards. The culvert
under Blenhein Road (Stewart Creek Tributary #2) will be replaced with three reinforced box culverts (RCBC)
that will be staggered in elevation to create a low flow culvert and "floodplain" culverts. Rip rap will be placed
around existing concrete downstream of the sanitary sewer crossing on Stewart Creek Tributary #2 near the
Rochelle Lane cul -de -sac to protect the channel and maintain the elevation of the tributary.
The culvert under South Hoskins Road (UT to Stewart Creek Tributary #2) will be replaced with a 6' wide (W) x
4' high (H) RCBC and approximately 24 If of rip rap apron will be placed downstream of the outfall to help
dissipate flows and protect the downstream channel. Both replacement culverts will be located entirely within
the footprint of the existing deteriorated structures to minimize permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters. In
addition, natural soil will be added to the bottom of the culverts to create a more natural channel bottom.
Temporary impacts will result from the installation of a construction access road on Stewart Creek Tributary #2
downstream of the Blenhein Road culverts. A pump around will be employed when installing the culverts, wing
walls, and rip rap aprons resulting in temporary de- watering impacts to Stewart Creek Tributary #2 and the UT
to Stewart Creek Tributary #2.
Sediment and erosion control devices will be installed and employed throughout the duration of the project.
Table 2 is a summary of stream impacts.
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas Page 2 of 5

Table 2. Stream Impacts
Stream
Impact ID
Stream
Type of
Impact
Proposed
Replaced
Permanent
Impact (If)
Temporary
Impact
9'W x 6'H RCBC
(West)
S1 (P)
Stewart
Culvert
7'W x 9'H RCBC
(Middle)
(2) 7'W x 7'H
(Sheet 14)
Creek
Tributary #2
Replacement
9'W x 7'H RCBC
Box Culvert
(72 It)
24
(East)
with headwalls
(96 11
S2 (P)
Stewart
Creek
Rip Rap
Sheet 15
(Sheet
Tributary #2
(Stabilization)
-
30
S3 (P)
U T to Stewart
Culvert
6'W x 4'H RCBC
48° RCP
(Sheet 17)
Creek
Tributary #2
Rep lacement
with headwalls
(81 10
(67 LF)
14
S4 (P)
UT to Stewart
Creek
Rip Rap Apron
(Sheet 17)
Tributary #2
(Stabilization)
-
24
S5 (T)
Stewart
Fill
(Sheet EC4)
Creek
(Temporary
-
27
Tributary #2
Access Road)
S6 (T)
Stewart
(Sheet EC4)
Creek
De- Watering
-
25
Tributary #2
S7 (T)
UT to Stewart
(Sheet EC4)
Creek
De- Watering
-
25
Tributary #2
Stream Impacts:
92
77
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas Page 3 of 5

NWP 27 Activities
CMSWS Intends to conduct Rosgen based Priority II stream restoration on approximately 985 linear feet (If) of
Stewart Creek Tributary #2 In addition, approximately 8,255 square feet (sq.ft) (0 19 acres) of emergent
wetlands will be created downstream of Blenhein Road Priority II restoration will consist of channel relocation,
bank grading and'stabilization, floodplain bench excavation, Installation of in- stream structures, and riparian
buffer establishment In addition, stream enhancement activities are proposed on approximately 790 If of
Stewart Creek Tributary #2 and approximately 580 If of UT to Stewart Creek Tributary #2 upstream of the
restoration reach Stream enhancement activities will Include creating a floodplaln bench, Installation of
instream structures, and stabilizing the banks with native vegetation Restoration and enhancement activities
will not be submitted for mitigation credits
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
HDR reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) GIS database and found no known structures
or historic districts located within the Project Area Correspondence (dated February 28, 2013) was sent.to the
NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requesting Information on cultural resources that may be
Impacted by the proposed project SHPO reviewed (ER- 13 -0421) the project,and commented that no historic
resources would be affected (dated March 8, 2013)
Federally Protected Species
HDR reviewed the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) protected species list for Mecklenburg County HDR
conducted an onsite visit and determined that the site does not exhibit habitat for any of the federally listed
species Vegetation within the project site was dominated by non - native'invasive species including Japanese
privet (Ligustrum japonicum), Chinese privet (L►gustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
and English ivy (Hedera helix). HDR also reviewed the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP)
Element Occurrence database and GIS layer According to the, NCNHP data, no federally protected species
occur within one mile of the proposed project As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to impact any
federally protected species or Critical Habitat FWS concurred with our findings in a response dated April 2,
2013 (FWS Log No. 4 -2 -13 -169).
We are hereby requesting authorization to construct under a NWP 3 and NWP 27 and Section 401 Water
Quality Certifications (WQC) No 3883 and WQC No 3885 Enclosed herein are.
➢ Agent Authorization Form
➢ Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
➢ Project Vicinity (Figure 1)
➢ USGS Mountain Island Lake Quadrangle (Figure 2)
➢ Jurisdictional'Waters ofthe U S (Figure 3)
➢ NRCS Soils (Figure 4)
➢ Construction Plans — Blenhein Storm Water Project
➢ DWQ Stream Identification Forms
➢ USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms
➢ USACE Wetland Determination Data Form — Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
➢ Representative Photographs
➢ Agency Letters
HDR Engineering, Inc of the Carolinas Page 4 of 5

Thank you in advance for your assistance If you have any questions or require additional information after
your review of the enclosed information, please contact Eric Mularski at (704) 973 -6878 or
enc mularski @hdnnc corn
Respectfully,
L, o J:: Z—::s � � � �
Eric Mularski, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Cc Greg Cole, Project Manager, CMSWS
Patrick Blandford, Project Manager, HDR
HDR Engineering, Inc of the Carolinas Page'5,of 5

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
I, Jennifer Smith, representing Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, hereby certify that I
have authorized Eric Mularski, representing HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing and issuance of the Nationwide Permits (3
and 27) application associated with the Blenhein Storm Water Project located in Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina.
We hereby certify that the information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the best of
our knowledge.
Jennifer Smith
Applicant's Name
p icant's 49nature
7licl /q
Date
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
Eric Mularski
Agent's Name
Agent's Signature
7/112014
Date
440 S Church Street Phone :[phone]
Suite 1000 Fax: [phone]
Charlotte, NC 28202 -1919 www.hdrinc.com

WA7 �9pG
2 0 1 4 0 7 7 1
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 De 2
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 El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 and 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Blenhein Storm Water Project
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
RRICRUM
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name:
Thomasboro JUL 2 3 2014
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
DENR -LAND QUALITY
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
See attached
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
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 Municipality
4b
Name
Greg Cole, Project Manager
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS)
4d
Street address
600 East Fourth Street
4e
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28202
4f
Telephone no
704- 432 -0966
4g
Fax no
704- 336 -6586
4h
Email address
gcole @ci charlotte nc us
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Eric Mularski, Environmental Scientist
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
HDR Engineering, Inc of the Carolinas
5c
Street address
440 S Church Street, Suite 100
5d
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28202 -1919
5e
Telephone no
704- 973 -6878
5f
Fax no
704 - 338 -6760
5g
Email address
enc mularski @hdnnc corn
.
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)
See attached plans
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 35 261 Longitude - 80 881
(DD DDDDDD) ( -DD DDDDDD)
1c
Property size
(— 32 2 neighborhood area) acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc) to
Stewart Creek Tributary #2
proposed project
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
Stewart Creek (Class C)
2c
River basin
Catawba (HUC 03050103)
3.
Project Description
3a
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
According to the land cover use classification adopted by North Carolina, the Project Area and surrounding properties are
classfied as low intensity developed, high intensity developed, managed herbaceous cover, and mixed
hardwoods /conifers These land uses are consistent with aerial imagery and recent onsite visits
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
No wetlands were observed during the onsite jurisdictional waters survey In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service's
(FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) did not identify wetlands in the Project Area
3c
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
—2,770 linear feet (If) of (perennial) Stewart Creek Tributary #2
— 650 If of (intermittent) unnamed tributary to Stewart Creek Tributary #2
3d
Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The purpose of the Blenhein Storm Water Project is to improve the performance of the existing neighborhood storm
drainage system, upgrade the capacity of the two culvert crossings (Bleinhein Road and South Hoskins Road), and
enhance aquatic habitat and water quality by restoring and enhancing Stewart Creek Tributary #2 and creating an
adjacent floodplain wetland to attenuate storm water flows
3e
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
The proposed project intends to replace the existing deteriorated stormwater facilities and provide water quality
improvements by implementing stream restoration /enhancement acfivites on tributaries within the watershed- Standard
excavation and earth moving equipment will be used during the construction Below is a summary of the proposed
improvements that will require authorization under the current Nationwide Permits
-- Approximately 985 If of Priority II stream restoration on Stewart Creek Tributary #2 from the culvert at 1 -85 upstream to
the culvert at Blenhein Road
-- Approximately 8,255 square feet (sq ft ) (0 19 acres) of emergent wetland creation from the culvert at 1 -85 upstream to
the culvert at Blenhein Road
-- Approximately 790 If of stream enhancement activates on Stewart Creek Tributary #2 upstream of the restoration site
-- Approximately 580 If of stream enhancement actvites on an unnamed tributary to Stewart Creek Tributary #2 upstream
of the restoration site
-- Replace an existing a double 7'x 7' boat culvert with a triple reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at Blenhein Road
-- Replace an existing 48" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with a 6' width (W) x 4' height (H) RCBC at South Hoskins
Road
Page 3 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 /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments
El Yes ® No El Unknown
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known)
Agency /Consultant Company
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
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
6.
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b
If yes, explain
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form — 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
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of Jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
[:3 No
❑DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 [-]PMT
❑ 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
Culvert
Stewart Creek
® PER
® Corps
12
24
Replacement (Fill)
Tributary #2
❑ INT
® DWQ
S2 ®P ❑ T
Rip Rap
Stewart Creek
® PER
® Corps
12
30
(Stabilization)
Tributary #2
❑ INT
® DWQ
S3 ® P ❑ T
Culvert
UT to Stewart
❑ PER
® Corps
5
14
Replacement (Fill)
Creek Tributary #2
® INT
® DWQ
S4 ® P ❑ T
Rip Rap Apron
UT to Stewart
❑ PER
® Corps
5
24
(Stabilization)
Creek Tributary #2
® INT
® DWQ
S5 ❑ P ® T
Fill
(Temporary
Stewart Creek
Tributary #2
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
12
27
Access Road)
S6 []PUT
De- Watering
Stewart Creek
Tributary #2
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
12
25
92 (P)
If 77 (T) If
See Table
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
2 in cover
letter for
enitre
listing
31 Comments Upgrading and replacing two deteriorated culverts will result in approximately 38 If of permanent fill impacts
Approximately 30 If of rip rap will be placed around existing concrete downstream of the sanitary sewer crossing on Stewart
Creek Tributary #2 A rip rap apron below the proposed replacement culvert at South Hoskins Road will result in
approximately 24 If of permanent impact Temporary impacts result from installation of a construction access road on Stewart
Creek Tributary #2 downstream of the Blenhein Road culverts A pump around will be employed when installing the culverts,
wing walls, and rip rap aprons resulting in approximately 50 If of temporary de-watering impacts to Stewart Creek Tributary #2
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

and the unnamed tributary to Tributary #2
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
4f. 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
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts {feet)
Upland
number
of pond
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If
yes, permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
51 Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1, 3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar-Pa mlico El 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?
61 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
The proposed stream restoration /enhancement activities are intended to improve water quality, enhance instream aquatic
habitat, and establish a native riparian buffer Stream banks will be sloped back and natural materials will be utilized to provide
bank stabilization and to create instream structures
The proposed storm water infrastructure has been designed according to the Charlotte - Mecklenburg storm drainage system
criteria and standards Replacement RCBCs have been designed to maintain low flow conditions and will be constructed
entirely within the footprint of the existing deteriorated structures These structures have been designed to the shortest
possible extent without compromising the intent of the proposed project
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
The Erosion Control Plan adheres to the local and state requirements and control devices will be employed throughout the
duration of the project Tree protection fencing will be installed as noted on the construction plans Stream banks will be
stabilized using biodegradable matting and planted with native grasses, trees, and shrubs The contractor will only perform
work on a section of stream that can be stabilized in the same day and all other areas will be stabilized within 48 hours All
work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area
Approximately l' of natural sod will be added to the bottom of the proposed RCBCs to create a more natural channel bottom
Rip rap will be placed around the existing deteriorating concrete downstream of the sanitary sewer crossing on Stewart Creek
Tributary #2 to protect the channel and maintain the elevation of the tributary A rip rap apron downstream of the outfall of the
proposed RCBC at South Hoskins Road will help dissipate flows and protect the downstream channel
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a
Name of Mitigation Bank
3b
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c Comments
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
4b Stream mitigation requested
❑ Yes
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.
5a
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ 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
Zone
Zone 1
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
3 (2 for Catawba)
6e
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 2
1 5
6g
6h
6f Total buffer mitigation required:
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)
Comments
Page 9 of 13
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?
less than 24 %
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why DWQ does not require a Stormwater
Management Plan for projects that are subject to Section 404 NWP 3 and NWP 27 authorizations
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan
❑ Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte /Mecklenburg
County
® Phase II
❑ 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)
la
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
Yes
E] 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)?
1 c
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter )
❑ Yes
® No
Comments
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c
If you answered "yes" to one or both ofthe 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 from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
generated
NA
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?
Obtained an updated list of federally protected species from the US Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) website (http / /nc-
es fws gov /es /countyfr html)
NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS coverage database search
The project site was dominated by non - native invasive species and did not exhibit habitat for any federally protected
species listed for Mecklenburg County
The FWS concurred with our findings in a response dated (April 2, 2013) (FWS Log No 4 -2 -13 -169)
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 Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps'Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
HDR reviewed the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) GIS database and found no known structures or historic
districts located within a mile of the Project Area
Correspondence (dated February 28, 2013) was sent to the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requesting
information on cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project SHPO reviewed (ER- 13- 0421`) the
project and commented that no historic resources would be affected (dated March 8, 2013)
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 The proposed project will be permitted under the General
Floodplain Development Permit A letter describing the proposed project will be submitted to the Mecklenburg County
Flood Mitigation Program
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Floodplain Mapping Information System
http / /floodmaps nc gov /fmis/
7/22/2014
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

Enc Mularski Date
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

OAKDALE NOR r
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
COULWVUA EAST B OAKDALE SOUTM
ad�A Pte/ Qa
Rd RouMIes Ferry Rd �'•,-
1000 PARK
PAW CREEK Chemwoy 9
115
+rl RECEIVE6
JUL 23A*
DENR -LAND QUALITY
STORmWATER PERM177
° R ROAD
GARDEN PARK ti
a Q �
LINCOLN
Blenhein Road 90,' HEIGHTS
Project Area OAKVIEW
� TERRACE
Forest F O Cg Not'
Lawn
Cemetery *?O, i3 LAKEWOOD x
- ToDrnnuE Raw ° .i OAKUwN DRUID HIL
Z 4 �QG► 16 r
- E N B U R G ENVERLY PARK �Hryy �a
E n "a 'r. T` LLE
r _
v 'v `'� AIIeg 0�'4 SfVfRSVlLLE
ood
Cemm
S" Rd etery
rh6on Blvd
WESTERLY FULLS ASHLEY PARK fvfir t1iRTM W
id
Wilkinson Blvd
° C r74 J
C
5 IrOL DRrvE u` b_, _ 3fR WILMORE ?� ar,
y 160
1.'EYMID H ES O �tUtit�r:
ARev€ park 1 inch = 1 miles
0 0.5 1 2
��.- • - Miles
Y.
ONE COMPANY IMany Solurio
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services I Blenhein Storm Water Project i Section 4041401

f - _ _ a .•
Fs
All 6100.
r Q-
A
Blenhein Road
Project Area -_ a
.4'
C
.� !..j LIP 1
� h -
1 inch = 2,000 feet
O
0 1.000 2,000 4,000
— Feet
;s
� Mountain Island Lake USGS Quadrangle
IU` Figure 2
ONE COMPANYMany Solutions
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services I Blenhein Storm Water Project I Section 404/401

Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
FOR Figure 3
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Wafer Services I Blenhein Storm Water Project I Section 4041401

NRCS Soils for Mecklenburg County
L�
I R Figure 4
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services I Blenhein Storm Water Project I Section 4041401

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: { �/
Project/Site,
Latitude. � r
Evaluator: Gib ��
County-
Longitude: _80za
0
i
_2
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circl
Other �au�c�a� �
Stream,�s at least intermittent 2
of ? 19 or erennnal if >_ 30' 3�
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e g Quad Name:
LF;j;
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong -
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
_2
3
_2 Sinuosity of channel along4halweg
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool se uence
0
1
'3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplam
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or tiench_es-
3
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
',8 Headcuts
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
24 Amphibians
A 5
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
15
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes 3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = ('ifs )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
_ 6:)--
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
15
16 Organic,debns'lines +or piles
0
05
1
5
17 'Sod -based evidence of high watertable?
No = 0
Yes 3
C Blolow (Subtotal= F,5 )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
d5
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
-
1
1 5
25 Algae
_ =0_
05
1.5'
26 Wetland pl`ants�m streambed
FACW'= 0 75; OBL = 1 & Other<0>
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p_,35`ofmanual
Notes
` I
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4:11 LT( -r/5 4:Zc-T_ ,mzmr -stj,,rj1 - -v, -,-4Q
Date: a
S /��?
Project/Site. �^I
atitucie:
Evaluator: Y cJ
County:
Longitude: _ -
fl
y
Total Points:
Stream Dete 'na ' (circle•one)
Other
Stream is at least mtermittent 5
if ? 19 or perennial if >_ 30`
Ephemeral nterm' Perennial
e g Quad.Name: L±
A Geomorphology (Subtotal = A
Absent W
Weak M
Moderate S
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank 0
0 1
1 2
2
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0
0 1
1 2
2 3
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, 0
0 2
2 3
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate 0
0 1
1 3
3
5._Activeire4ct•floodplain 0
0 2
2 3
3
-6 -- Depositional -bars 6f- benches
7 Recent alluvial deposits 0
0 2
2 3
3
8 Headcuts 0
0 2
2 3
3
9. Grade control 0
0 0
05 e
e 1
15
10 Natural valley 1
10 0
05 1
1'
11,. Second_ or greater order,channel N
No '
'Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual'
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 1� )
12 Presence of'Baseflow 0 1 3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 Z5 2 3
14 Leaf litter 1.5 05 0
15 Sediment on plants or debris 0 0 5 717 1.5
16 Organic debris lines or piles 0 05 15
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table? No - Yes = 3
G Bioloqy (Subtotal = K )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0 -
10 Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 2 3
21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22 Fish 05 1 15
23 Crayfish 05 1 15
24 Amphibians 0 1 15
25 Algae 0 5 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 f a '�.
Sketch
y -fig
t
V
G Bioloqy (Subtotal = K )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0 -
10 Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 2 3
21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22 Fish 05 1 15
23 Crayfish 05 1 15
24 Amphibians 0 1 15
25 Algae 0 5 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 f a '�.
Sketch
y -fig
t
V

USACE AID# DWQ # — Site # (indicate on attached map) ,
;M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ' ,m - K Cu 47 A\AAVN-2, Evaluator's name: F i-c- Tku�AV 9X-(
3. Date of evaluation: a S `ws 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: J «iw gAkt., 'fS-�3 6. River basin: r t P v f� .
7. Approximate drainage area: 12515&4 S 8. Stream order: � Nn
9. Length of reach evaluated: =i :10 L 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): t prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): aa�kwMAS %6Q
pr a
Latitude (ex 34.872312): �' �fl Longitude (ex -77 556611): W.
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Otlidt.
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map iden Win (g stream(s) location):
1\.A,fL i wAAA Ltkt �oA3 3 `IZvCrWt.t LA4-W_ IM kf(%e cc'.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of vi
e
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters ^ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (1 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? Cam'' .O 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 4-0% Residential J% Commercial J(!!:�% Industrial _% Agricultural
-% Forested S % Cleared / Logged % Other
22. BankfW I width: I - I a Iryk 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): G F
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep (> 10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: -�KStraight _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): 3- Com
�I p
Evaluator's Signature j L Date
This channel evaluation rm is iiteV&dlto ggd only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 -876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* 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
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0. contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
-
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
6
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
p"
dee l entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0— 4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max ints)
I 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — S
0-5
severe erosion = 0. no erosion, stable banks = max points)
d
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 4
0 5
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
—
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
15
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle- pooUripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 5
0-6
16
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
-
e
i 7
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max
0-6
0-6
points)a
0-6
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
a
no shading vegetation = 0. continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddeduess
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
�
no evidence = 0; common numerous = max ints
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
J
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max ints
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
a
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
too
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
3�
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Ado
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ia,afLeact -1'li� v�l fA ` � 2. Evaluator's name: 7&Q ,c- r�lw AG.I
3. Date of evaluation: �I axe, 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: l ff -to 5 s�,n,A ei i2gr f—"�,C *� 6. River basin: [ / AzASt3A
7. Approximate drainage area: i5 A(gk�1 8. Stream order: ) 5T
9. Length of reach evaluated: i 50 10. County: cev ►� �
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
2 �p
Latitude (ex 34.872312): cJ.J d�� Longitude (ex —77.556611):
r
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS b 44
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identt�yf ing stream(s) location):
.,d i�YcilL µ� �, t�..rJt1Z�t�y"Ji� � 1�.� � ..�/� �i✓�ty�
14. Proposed channel work (if any): buy -VoK �ZW�A "ice }hto*V,
15. Recent weather cond
16. Site conditions at time of vis
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES �OIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES � 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ,D% Residential 6 % Commercial am% Industrial _% Agricultural
_15% Forested
22. Bankfull width: Z-`-1 frfr
24. Channel slope down center of stream: k Flat (0 to 2 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight !Occasional bends
% Cleared / Logged _% Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): (p'] IfEI=
!Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
_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): 3( Commen
. t �xFht r�,-wcX►.cC 1r�.ovw , R,Pia1Q Ft�tc g '�
Evaluator's Signature t Date a1"73 V61S
This channel evaluation rm ls7Vten-cred to used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United tates Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from t e completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requiremeq . Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKS14EET
The§iF c1iirctie-iistics are not assessed in coastal streams
0R0 % t T�4
C HA R ��
& �.
SC4
-..
Coastal t 0=1 WilrFOM9101
WR GROW
',
Presen6 6rfl�vv /'persiste c�oofi in
n
'0-'
1
saturation`_- -,strong, flow..7-: m
no flow or saftu -A
0' -5
Q�4`i
f -&
5
2
0
Evidence f p'aq-t-humiin alteration,
- ' '
0
6-
0 =5,=
-I
extensive alteration ffiax Ooifits)
on�-�-'O,Ao alteration
V3
- O , 6
0j-4
'V-,5
(no1bdier,!L'O,,.,co iguous..*id& &F, P�iitSj
bu �,max,
4'
=,--:,�-F�(exeefisiveidikhar
Evidence d nutrilenVor chemical -
) - -
'-=-O-;,n�i�isc�arges�,-=tma�x,poi
0= 5
0�- 4
_ge
3
(nqMis6harg6-=-=O; sp6g wAtlinds,etc: , ° max PO
-seeps,
Presiice.6fadjaceit ftodplili'
--C
0:714,
0-
—�(no.'i'166d1�1ain--=--0 exteh 'vbAlbddv1aiw-n
91 'maxp initi)!-
Entrenchriiit / floodplain access
J
YO
- 'd., ---- - - -
--A
0 _ A J
-2
-en� -"
-'(&6�li tr6ched. 0;,fre4uent floo ing max pointsY -1
--
pr -1 ---- - ­ - - -- . ,
Presence-of adjacent wetlands-
A
T 1-0'--: 6'
r'-4-: 1: , 1
-4
.0
(no lands 0; large id•acent wetlandsi�F max points) ,
T .. -,'y - - . 11
L
19
hinneWsmu'6sity
Ov-=
r 0
:�= extensi've,clrannelization = 0•,natural.ineander- .»maze rots �,
5
� ... -� -�.
-4'
i� _
0w 3
(i ensi2ve"d ���iti'o'na!O--,'-I�ttielo -s ai mikpoint-
i6eat-A- ints).
-:W47
4
--(flne,",Iiio4mogen'b'us-E-'0;41arge;-diverse!sizs;=-iiiix.lpoints)-,
T&-- 5
--a-nnelid-c-i-si-o-n,-o-r-wide-Im-m—g
TVI-diace of1c
5,r
'0 4, Ji
0' �5'
eepl C1
'PiFes-enie,ofiidaj6r,bankfailurts
;�--
d- '5
*-5�
oa,-5
erosion ir4
-6�verb W-osion-�=--O;no- stible.ba�k� Gaxpo
P and density oh'Vanks
tiot4iliih on , , - I
'(no-visib16)rootsf!,O;,.dense roots thioighouu:-: max poirits),
' '
0 3
0 -
0-5
- -
5-
-r - -. - -- -----
iniiiiFf"Vy gnepiture, livestocl� "rqc-t "o-
-
�
0-4
J
al'inip h 0 evidence = rhak,,O-
f6 !y
.-ointgY
,7--'Wei&nii of ilffle,-PO-611rio -fe�pool-oR—m complexes,
4; �p
-:L-:1 -- --I- �
es- well-ii;dclopdd max pointg)
no riffleg/rippi or. Po'o s 0;
- - - 0" 3-
Ir
ty
?'V
little org"no'habf6t-A,'O, gule'At�,-,iiar-iild,habiiais--I'ry'fa-x',O'bifit-s)'�'
-J7
7- C eby-ef-age am
4ver'ktFe Afiafff
0
0
0,
'6-n dontinuousicanoOP-t- =maw onus 3
79 e emW ss
S u itihff id d Wii�
—4
I 'JU
--'Oed-Lp-l'L-irnbedd'ed
4o7
Pre ence of stream-iivir&6ra&i`(s&e IF
pa
'fS
�0'- 4 -J
, -,,- - JO, 5 11
Presence of amphibians
0-4 1
0-4
.-0,- 4
-(no-evidence 0; coinmon, numerous es- max 06ifits)
0
*W
Ft��
re-se-fice- f;-fisb-.--
P of
'typ-ei
917-.4
C�
evidence =,O• co-mm'din,�n-umerdu's-1 =-,mWpoints) 2
6,46
q
23
'UW
Evidencild rildlifevii
075
0 -5,
=,mk
evidence �='b, abundanvevidence omts)
Total Points Possible
HIM
100
M=
'IMIN
page)
The§iF c1iirctie-iistics are not assessed in coastal streams

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA'FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProiecdSite� Blenhein Storm Water Project City /County Charlotte /Mecklenburg
Applicant/Owner, , Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services State NC
Investigator(s) Eric MUlarskl Section, Township, Range N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) hillslope, Local relief (concave,, convex, none) convex
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P Lat 35 26 Long -80 888
Sampling Date 2/5/2013
- Sampling Point DP1
— Slope ( %)
Datum
Sod Map Unit Name Mo - Monacan Soils NWI classification None
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the=site typical for'this time of year? Yes = No (If no, explain'in Remarks )
Are Vegetation= Sod ❑, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation❑ Sod 0, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (Ifneeded, explairnany�answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site, map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ,etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes ❑ No= within a'Wetland? Yes = No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No=
Remarks
Upland data point There Is no evidence of jurisdictional wetland areas within the study area
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum oftwo required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
❑ Surface,Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated'Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (610)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rh¢ospheres on Living Roots (C3),
❑ Moss Trim Lines (616)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled "Sods, (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑,Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Ima9ery (C9)
❑ Algal' Mat or'Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aqurtard (D3)
❑ Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes= No 0 Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No Q' Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No' " ' Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
No,wetland hydrology Indicators are present
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) =,Use scientific names,of plants.
Sampling Point DP1
US Army Corps,of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 -ft
) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Corpus Honda
20 Yes FACU
_
2
That Are�OBL, FACW, or FAC (A)
2 Celtis occidentalis
20 Yes FACU
3 Quercus rubra
10 Yes FAC U
Total Number of Dominant
6
-
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW,,or FAC 33
6
50 = Total Cover
Prevalence, Index•worksheet
50 %.of total cover 25 20% of total cover 10
Total %Cover of Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
'Sapling Stratum (Plot size
)
FACW species x12 =
1
-
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= TotAI,Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hy&ophytic Vegetation
Shrub-Stratum (Plot size 15 -ft
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 Ligustrum,sinense
60 Yes FAC
03 - Prevalence Index is 53 0"
2
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data °in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3
0 Problematic Hydrophytic, Vegetation' (Explain)
4
5
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6
be,present, unless disturbed or problematic
60 = Total Cover
Definitions, of Five Vegetation Strata
50% of total cover 30 20% of total cover 12
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size
)
approximately 20 ft (6,m) or more in height and 3 in
1
(7 6 cm)tor larger in diameter at breast height(DBH)
2
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3 _
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more,in height and less
4
-
than.3 in (7 6 cm) DBH
5
Shrub - Woody,plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
7
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants', including
g
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9
ft (1 m) in height
10
Woody vine—All woody vines, ?egardless,of height
11
= Total, Cover
50 %of total cover 20% of total cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
30 -ft )
1 Lonlcera japonica
30 Yes FAC_
2 Smilax spp
30 Yes NI
3 Hedera helix
10 No NI
4
5
_
70
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
n
50% of total cover 35 20% of total cover 14
Present? Yes
No
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Vegetation is dominated by
upland species (see Photograph #5)
US Army Corps,of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point DP1
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to documenfthe indicator or confirm the absence of indicators)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 - 5 1 0Y 4/3 100
silt clay loam
5 -20 10YR 4'/3 , 100
Clay Loam
'Type C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM=
Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix
Hydric,Soil Indicators.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sods'
❑,Hlstosol.(A1)
❑, Dark Surface (S7)
E] 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedom(A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA, 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie, Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark;Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark SUrface,(Al 1)
❑ Depleted Dark,Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in, Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
0 Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matnxe(S4)
❑ Umbric Surface,(F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑' Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F1,9) (ML"RA 148)
wetland'hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic _
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type,
❑ No ❑�
Depth (inches)
Hydnc
Sod Present? Yes
Remarks
Our site visit revealed that there was no evidence of hydric soils within the study area
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

fUR
vi.n ��� "«,,,.• �..� /of u-0-1— site Photoaraohs- bienhein Storm water
Photograph #1- Stewart Creek Tributary #2 - looking upstream
Photograph #2 - Stewart Creek Tributary #2 - Existing Culvert at Blenhein Road (looking upstream)

IFDR
n ATC !`n AATIA ATV A./_._.. c_1...
F - .1 bite MnoiouraDns - tsienneln JLorm water
Photograph #3 — Existing concrete and 6 inch sanitary sewer crossing on Stewart Creek Tributary #2
Photograph #4 — Tributary to Stewart Creek Tributary #2 — Existing Culvert at Hoskins Road (looking upstream)

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville FieldOfi'ice
160 ZilLcoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 2, 2013
Mr. Eric Miilarski
HDR Engineering, Inc.
440 South Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Subject: Listed Species Assessment, Proposed Blenheim Storm Water Project, in Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Mularski:
On March 3, 2013 we received letter from you requesting our review of the subject project. We
have reviewed the information presented and are providing the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661- 667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531- 1543) (Act).
According to the information presented, the Blenheim Flood Control Project is to improve the
storm drainage system by restoring and enhancing an un -named tributary of Stewart Creek and
creating, a wetland area for storm water attenuation. The project is also proposed to enhance
aquatic habitat and overall water quality. An application for a 404/401 permit is being submitted
for construction activities associated with the project including culvert replacement, stream
restoration, and wetland creation.
Endangered Species. According to our records and a "review of the information presented, no
listed species or their habitats occur on the site. We concur with your determination that the
proposed project will have "no effect" on federally fisted species. Therefore, we believe the
requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section, 7 of
the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner,that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by°the, identified action.
Project Recommendations. We have no objection to the proposed actions and support any
efforts to restore and protect the water quality in the project area. Because stream conditions are
least affected where stream banks are °stabilized by deep- rooted woody vegetation, stream
restoration efforts should incorporate the use,of native vegetation adapted to site conditions.
Biodegradable erosion - control materials should be incorporated into bank restoration design in

order to stabilize soil's as vegetation becomes, established. Live, dormant stakes (such as black
willow) may be used to reestablish root structure in riparian areas In areas where banks are
severely undercut, high, and steep, whole tree revetments or rock may be used as a stabilization
treatment (small rock, gravel, sand, and dirt are not recommended due to their erosive nature).
However, it should not extend above the bank -f il'1 elevation (the elevation of the channel where
the natural floodplain begins), and deep - rooting woody vegetation should be established along
banks where any channel work,is accomplished. Tree and shrub plantings should be *spaced at
intervals no greater than 10 feet along banks. Vegetated riparian,zone widths should be as wide
as practical but should extend at least 20 feet from the stream channel.
Also, the presence of large woody debris is an important aspect of natural stream conditions in
headwater streams. Woody debris, detritus and other vegetative,materials are the main source of
nutrients and carbon necessary for primary productivity in these stream ecosystems. Removal of
this material can affect the production of higher trophic levels, specifically in fish. The Service
does not recommend the removal of woody debris within the stream channel or floodplain unless
it is causing a debris blockage (log jam) or will, affect the ability to achieve bank stability, along a
specific reach of stream.
Erosion Control and Wetland /Stream Protection. Given the proximity of the project to
aquatic environments, measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any
ground disturbing activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing
vegetation should be retained (if possible) to maintain shoreline cover for fish and wildlife.
Disturbed areas should be re- vegetated with native grass and tree species as soon as the project is
completed.
We appreciate the opportunity to ,provide ,these comments. If we can be of assistance ,or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258 -3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4 -2 -13 -169.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Mark Cantrell
Acting Field Supervisor

d4,a. STATE q,
ti 02
wN.
North Carolina Department of Cultural.Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
'Ramona M Barton, Administrator
Pat IvicCrory, Governor
Susan'W Klutt7, Secretary
Kevin Cherry, Deputy Secrctary
March 8, 2013
Eric Mularski
HDR,Engmeering; Inc.
440 South Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202 -1919
Re: Belnheim Storm Water Project, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 13 -0421
Dear Mr. Mularski:
Thank you for your letter of February 28, 2013, concerning the above project
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, DirLctor
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that,may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection With this project.
As stated in your letter, this project is located adjacent to the Piedmont and No Railway Linear Historic
District, which was determined eligible for lasting in the National Register of Historic Places in 2011. We
concur with your finding that the proposed project; which includes culvert replacement, stream restoration, and
wetland restoration; will have no eect on historic properties.
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,
6rRamona M. Bartos
Location 109 Gast Joncs Street, Raleigh NC 27,601 Maihng Address 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax [phone] -6599