20070403 Ver 1_401 Application_20070307

BucK
March 2, 2007
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker Corporation
1447 South Tryon Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
Ms. Cyndi Karoly 0 7_ 0 4 0 3
NC DENR ,.
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 P~'~~~ ~ N T
R~C~IVED
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification/401 Certification Package
Little Sugar Creek Midtown Reach- Stream Enhancement and Greenway Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find enclosed seven copies of our PCN package for the subject project. We have included the
following supporting data: D ~ ~ ~ ~~
• PCN form
• Vicinity, USGS, and site maps,
• existing conditions and design summary, M A R S 2 0 0 7
• photo log, and o~w~ - warEa c~uAi.irr
• 11" x 17" copy of the 30% plan set. w~nnNaQ Asp sroi~aawarF>~ BREwcI~
The goals of the project are to
• daylight 800 linear feet of Little Sugar Creek currently flowing under a concrete cap with
concrete banks,
• stabilize the creek banks with native vegetation,
• install in-stream boulder structures to improve habitat and provide grade control,
• excavate a floodplain bench, and
• establish a greenway adjacent to the riparian corridor.
This same information has been submitted to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office of the US Army
Corps of Engineers. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Emily G. Reinicker, PE, CFM
Project Manager
Enclosure
Cc: Ms. Crystal Taylor
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services
ChallengeUs.

Office Use Only: _ Form Version March OS
07-0403
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing t~/y~MEI~T
RECEIVED
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check ~(~'~ ~ 1
Q 11 U
II. Applicant Information MAR ~ ZQ07
Owner/Applicant Information

Name: C stal Ta for DENR - WATER QA ~ gRpNCN
t'y .~' y,~n,pND0. P:~D ST~tlylY~
Mailing Address: Mecklenbur~y Storm Water Services
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number:~704) 336-7342 Fax Number:,~704) 336-3846
E-mail Address: Crystal.Ta~lor(a~mecklenbur cg ountync.gov
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Emily Reinicker, P.E., CFM
Company Affiliation: Buck Engineering, a unit of Michael Baker Corporation
Mailing Address: 1447 South Trvon Street
Suite 200
Charlotte NC 28203
Telephone Number:~704) 334 - 4454 Fax Number: (704) 334 - 4492
E-mail Address: ereinicker(a,mbakercorp.com
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Little Sugar Creek Greenway -Midtown Reach -Independence Blvd to
Baxter St
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 125-227-04
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): North of the Cit ~ of
Charlotte: I-77 South, Take the Wilkinson Blvd/I-277 E/ John Belk Frwy/ US-74 E% West
Blvd exit 9, Merge onto I-277 N / US-74 E via exit 9B Take the Kenilworth Ave / NC-16 S /
Third St./ Fourth St. exit 2-A Take the Kenilworth Ave ramp Turn right onto Kenilworth
Ave., Turn Left onto Baxter St. (See Vicinity Map and Site Man) The Midtown Reach
extends from Baxter St north to Independence Blvd.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.213678° °N 80.836164°°W -Upstream Point
35.211644°°N 80.836675°°W -Downstream Point
6. Property size (acres): 3.53
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Little Sugar Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Updated I l/1/2005
Page 2 of 9

9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project site is located~ust south of uptown Charlotte.
Little Sugar Creek has been altered to accommodate development. On the Midtown Reach
the creek has been capped for commercial use: the Midtown Mall parking cap extends for
800 feet between Independence Boulevard and the Baxter Street Bridge. Only about 20
linear feet of channel exist in the gap between the brid eg_s and parking cap.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Removal
of the Midtown Mall parking cap currently over the creek, removal of the concrete covering
the banks, ~rading_and planting bank slopes with native riparian species, excavation of
floodplain bench, excavation of riffle and pool bedform features and installation of in-stream
boulder structures. A trackhoe will be used for in-stream work.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The primary #;oal for the project is to reclaim
the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain and stream channel.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USAGE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A. Future plans for stream enhancement work are bein dg eveloped on other sections of Little
Sugar Creek, but construction document packages are being developed for these reaches under
separate contracts.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 3 of 9

riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: "dam ting" 800 LF of creek that
currently flow under a parking cap, as well as stabilizing the 850 LF of channel once the
concrete cap and banks are removed.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
senarately list impacts due to both structure and flnndinu
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Updated l l/1/2005
Page 4 of 9

4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acrea~e_ multiply len>?th X wdth_ then divide by 43_Sf0_
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Little Sugar Creek Enhancement Perennial 50' 850 0.98

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 850 0.98
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dred~in~. flooding. drainage. bulkheads_ etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resultin>? from the nroiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.98
Wetland Impact (acres):
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.98
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 850
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Updated 11 / 1 /2005
Page 5 of 9

8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The project constitutes a positive impact, enhancing stream function and habitat by improving
bed features in the stream. Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion
and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manuel.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 9

If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USAGE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
Updated 1 V U2005
Page 7 of 9

X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
Approximately 3.3 acres of this 3.5-acre site is impervious area in its present conditions. The
proposed design will reduce the impervious area b~pproximately 3.0 acres since existing
paved areas will be removed and replaced with ve>;etated floodplain. The proposed project
represents a si>~ificant reduction in impervious area.
Updated 11 / I /2005
Page 8 of 9

XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This is a stream restoration project that will not increase development in the area.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
~~
Applicantl'Agent's gnatdre Diate
(Agent's signature is valid ly if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 9 of 9

07-0403
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK MIDTOWN REACH
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
SUPPORTING DATA
PCN 401/404 CERTIFICATION PACKAGE
Prepared For
Crr~ar~ptle-1NaL 1 ~e rtbt+,'g'
T
'~E~.
. ...
Prepared By
Bu~K
~~ tr ~ ~ ~.: _. t;
March 2, 2007

07-0403
Vicinity Map
,- -
q~ y~'sf 5ti F ~ ~s~ .~~ ~h sr
P ~e'yrG~~gt oaf' ~` 0 5~ eta ~~,(+-~a e~y~ ~ ~ ~QPS' ~~4Qo ~ 1acKS°r' PVeGer~3 a1 pyg ~ x
~~ s or G- r ~ ~ ,~ t - r F
~ F s °
N 3~,~~' ~ ~~~~ yG~~ 50~~ "S, *~s ~ gpt ~ unnye1~ AyQ v
~'ayr ~~ FAQ Fs 3rsf o~e`~ bP ~ 5 i..74 .. .~ ~x
d`f °?94 gGs (} Sf F ~~ o`~P B
Ri ~ o Pde ~~~0 y` ~ `~S~ A~~f F~,~P ~ ~ ~. RCS' Sr
~a C~ey°"q` ~C' ~~d~ r e• dS,9r, ~2`" G~4~ ~d~S,~ aa.
~~ `ydio,° Mt y F f r ara +~+~ ~
o e"^°n '
Gj yD F r Ave o ~~ ; .. ~ ~. G~~
P a o ~ Gr'~ m lbesb
g ~ ~+` y
G °'~ °' ° Sf Ciy h u a
°+' +° ~~'~'d ~ ~ r ~o .Q 4 SASS '9i-a
g•P ~~ '~ 8erkeky Ave 'S~ 4i ! .~ h. ~' '49 ~
~ cy'q ~ ~ Pom ~ergf ~ ~or•
a
~'f Q hA S .~~' °°y l7artmoulh PI 9ye
Ij~ ~°ti 5 +`ra~~1- ~~ ~ 4 ~,teyQt ~tA~e~o.Sl o
c~,,, q ~ `r Hermitage Ct ~ ~
0~~~ v o Q-a Ar d St Q,~ Qa gromteY Rd C°a~S' o`~~P
9,~ ,~`~ °~q ~ ~ C+lrv~-ss ~' Mora+nan Ln r p
Q ~, ~ a~ ~• M/dkel s~ eh6 Rd ~' ~
Ma~olia Ave g 9 ~~ ~ Oo N Edg ~ CranNoak Ln
S ~ eq D ia1 d ~3q,
e ~e o ~~~ `~'SEdgehillR P~ a Whey Fent~nP~~°feo ~~ O
~s~1 m ~ ~Q.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~a ~ ~y
~de~ % ~p~e ~o~ Q ~ ~ ~ Ze ~?'a Altondare Ave ~o•
~ ~ ~~°~ ,or' C°ne~onp' ~ G~~ CottagePl Fq~oYef
de~ore,q a~ v° Hopedale Ave ~ Rd
®2006 Ma Quest inc. ~ v ~ ® 0 NK1VT
~t i[.
Directions:
North of the City of Charlotte: From I-77 South, take the Wilkinson Blvd/I-277 E/John
Belk Frwy/ US-74 E/ West Blvd exit 9.
Merge onto I-277 N / US-74 E via exit 9B.
Take the Kenilworth Ave / NC-16 S /Third St./ Fourth St. exit 2-A.
Take the Kenilworth Avenue ramp.
Turn right onto Kenilworth Avenue.
Turn Left onto Baxter Street. This location is the downstream project limit.
The Midtown Reach greenway site is bounded by Independence Boulevard to the north,
Baxter Street to the south, Midtown Mall and Kings Drive to the east, and Kenilworth
Avenue to the west.

LJ L" Y' ,, i
ll
~l'~

T.

~~
+ 1
. ,~ ~ , ~ ~ -
~~ ~~ ~ ~~
~i, ~- ~ ~ ~
( e.._
r ~ ~ r --
v ~ ~.. ~. ._-c,~ _ N h.f",..
jf
1 , ~ gin' ~~
LEGEND USGS 'T'opographic Map
Little Sugar Creek Midtown Reach
~ Project Reach Streams Mecklenburg County, NC
0 350 700 1,400 © B V ~ K
Feet

E John Belk Fr ~..% !~ * Y r` ~
E John Belk Fr - ~% ~ . v ' ~~~
d
7 ..` . ;,
~;
_ ~~' m ~' `,~ ~ ` ~ ref ~p
`,~ F
y - F/ d s ~` f~v ~~, ~~, Y~I
~~'" 1,A1 n ~ ".'~
.~ ~ ohn Betk Ra J S t Ytleperyaenoe ~
B~ ~ ~~,.
k,, ~ ~ ~ .
~,:~,, ~ ~ ., o
,.~ ~ ,k',. [~ 4' Y
_• i.~ ~ /•
,~ MF ` +t
f
• .~.
1. T er
~~ ~ ~t ~ .~~ ti •4
s:a .° ~ ~~ MRS ~.. f . ~ 1. ~, '` ~/` ,^ ~ ~R+ „~
• ~ 't ~' ~'
~' ~. ~. .~ ` ~ ~ '~ Baxter r- ; ~ ~` l
r~n ~ . t~. 1 1 ~+I• ~ f t F~~r~°~f ~i
LEGEND Site Map
Little Sugar Creek Midtown Reach
~ Project Reach Streams ~ Parcels Mecklenburg County, NC
o too zoo aoo ~ ~ , BUCK
Feet

y O ( + O ~ V
Little Sugar Creek Midtown Reach
Independence Boulevard to Baxter Street
Existing Conditions and Design Summary
Buck Engineering is developing construction documents for a stream enhancement project on
Little Sugar Creek from Independence Boulevard to Baxter Street in Charlotte, NC. This
memorandum summarizes our watershed assessment of Little Sugar Creek to the downstream
end of the project at Baxter Street.
Watershed Delineation
The project area is located in central Mecklenburg County just southwest of downtown Charlotte
in the Catawba River Basin. The drainage area of Upper Little Sugar Creek (from the headwaters
to Baxter Street) is approximately 10.6 square miles. The headwaters of the creek are located in
the northeast quadrant of Charlotte, south of I-85 and east of I-77. After flowing through the
project site, Little Sugar Creek continues south through Mecklenburg County to join Sugar Creek
which continues to the Catawba River east of Rock Hill, SC.
Land Use
The Little Sugar Creek watershed is located in a highly developed urban setting; approximately
80% of the land in the watershed has been developed. Approximately 43% of the land surface is
impervious. The land uses within the watershed include residential (47%), industrial (25%),
commercial (19%), woods (7%), and institutional (2%).
Geology
The city of Charlotte lies in the Charlotte Belt, which is a geologic zone comprised of
predominantly metavolcanic and plutonic rock types. The geology of the project area is Devonian
and Ordovician age granodiorite rock. The granodiorite is medium-grained, massive to weakly
foliated, and is comprised mainly of plagioclase and quartz (Goldsmith, 1984).
Bedrock knick points were observed in the channel upstream and downstream of the project
limits. These knick points indicate the presence of shallow bedrock and also indicate that bedrock
is preventing the creek bed from further incision or downcutting. The existing creek is covered by
a concrete bridge deck and could not be entered to make bedrock observations due to confined
space entry limitations.
Soils
The soils found within the floodplain of the project site include Cecil sandy clay loam and Urban
soils. Cecil soils are typically very deep and well drained uplands soils that formed in residuum
from felsic rock. The surface layer of the soil is loamy and the subsoil is clayey. Urban soils
describe areas where the original soils have been cut, filled, graded, or paved to the extent that a
soil type can no longer be recognized. The existing site's floodplain and banks are paved except
for a few small landscape areas.
Hydrology
The Upper Little Sugar Creek watershed is an urban watershed with a very high percentage of
impervious cover. The development and impervious cover has impaired the natural hydrologic
function of this watershed. The increase in development and impervious surface allows more
rainfall to run off the land and directly into the creek. In less developed watersheds, a greater
percentage of the rainfall is able to be absorbed by the ground and so less rainfall runs off into the
creek. Urban watersheds such as Little Sugar Creek will see higher quantities of rainfall enter the

creek at a faster rate. Urban systems are often described as "flash' since the stage and flow of
the creek quickly increase in response to a storm; after the storm, the peak flow can quickly pass
and the stage quickly recedes.
Existing Stream Condition
Much of Little Sugar Creek has been altered to accommodate development. The creek has
historically been dredged and maintained as a flood control channel. Most of the banks have
been armored to prevent erosion from high flow velocities. The creek has been capped to
accommodate commercial use: the Midtown Mall parking cap extends for 800 between the
Independence Boulevard bridge and the Baxter Street bridge. Only about 20 LF of open channel
exists in the gap between the bridges and parking cap.
The project reach of Little Sugar Creek has been listed on the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality's (NCDWQ) 303(d) list since 2000. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires
states to develop a list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired
uses. The NCDWQ 303(d) list includes violations of impaired biological integrity and high fecal
coliform concentrations for the creek.
Bankfull Verification
The bankfull stage along the Little Sugar Creek Midtown Reach could not be identified in the field,
but work on the Kings Drive Reach immediately downstream and the CPCC Reach immediately
upstream assisted with bankfull identification. The indicators were a break in slope on a flat
depositional feature and a high scour line. Vegetation trends were used as additional validation
for this stage selection. These indicators are consistent with other North Carolina urban Piedmont
streams. Bankfull data for the project reach was compared with the North Carolina Piedmont
regional curve. The project's riffle cross-sectional areas consistently plot close to the urban
regional curve data, indicating that bankfull stage was adequately selected within acceptable
limits.
In order to identify bankfull discharge along the downstream Kings Drive Reach, the current
Mecklenburg County HEGRAS model was used. A range of discharges was run through the
model to identify a range which correlated with the field-identified bankfull stage. The bankfull
discharge ranged from 900 to 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs) according to the model. These
values are consistent with other North Carolina Piedmont urban streams. The bankfull discharge
was further verified by astage-discharge rating curve developed at a USGS gage (02146409)
near Medical Center Drive approximately 3,000 LF downstream from Baxter Street on Little Sugar
Creek. The observed bankfull depth (bankfull height -water surface elevation) in the Kings Drive
Reach was approximately 5.8 to 6.3 feet. This stage on the rating curve shows a discharge of
950 to 1,150 cfs. This identified discharge is near to the previously identified range and therefore
within the acceptable limits.
Two other reaches of Little Sugar Creek have had stream enhancement work performed. The Liz
Hair Reach (Morehead Street to East Boulevard) and Westfield Road Reach (Princeton Street to
Brandywine Road) are both located downstream of the Kings Drive Reach. A geomorphic survey
has been conducted on both of these reaches, and the bankfull cross section areas for existing
and design conditions at Westfield are plotted on the regional curve in Figure 4. The Liz Hair
Reach was a Rosgen Priority 4 enhancement project which did not change channel geometry.
The Westfield Reach bankfull area plots near to the North Carolina Piedmont urban curve. The
Kings Drive Reach data are consistent with the other Little Sugar Creek reaches, thus further
verifying that the bankfull stage was selected within acceptable limits.
Buck Engineering Page 2
LSC Midtown Reach Summary March 2, 2007

Reference Reach and Design Parameter Selection
Two reference reaches were identified off the project site and are located in the Piedmont of North
Carolina. These same reaches were used for the Westfield Road Reach natural channel design.
Campbell Creek is located in Charlotte, NC, and has asemi-urban drainage area of 6.1 square
miles. Silas Creek is located in Winston-Salem, NC, and has a watershed that is suburban with a
high percentage of forest. The Silas Creek reach drains 3.3 square miles. Both of these sites plot
close to the rural regression curve for bankfull cross sectional area, thus indicating the Piedmont
regional curve is applicable to these streams which are being used as reference reaches. The
fact that these streams' bankfull characteristics plot near to the rural curve rather than the urban
curve may indicate that urbanization has not had much of an effect on the geomorphic functions of
these streams.
Campbell Creek classifies as a Rosgen E4 type stream, while Silas Creek classifies as a Rosgen
B4c type. Silas Creek is more entrenched with an entrenchment ratio (ER) of 1.3 than Campbell
Creek's ER at 3.5. Silas Creek has a higher width to depth ratio at 15.1, while Campbell Creek is
approximately 9.7. The grain size distribution of the reference reaches is comparable to that of
Little Sugar Creek design reach. The design reach has a lower d~ grain size, which can be
attributed to a more urbanized watershed than the reference reaches. The average water surface
slope of the design reach is 0.3% and is also comparable with the reference reaches which are
between 0.7% to 0.8%.
The Little Sugar Creek Midtown Reach stream enhancement project will consist of Rosgen
Priority 2 and 3 enhancement. Stream alignment (pattern) adjustments will be made in areas not
restricted by infrastructure or utilities. This reach currently classifies between a Rosgen B4 and
G4. An absolute Rosgen stream classification of urban streams such as Little Sugar Creek is
difficult due to historical channel modification and the limited ability of the channel to freely adjust
to its channel-forming agents because of utility and infrastructure constraints. The final design will
incorporate Rosgen B parameters. The width to depth ratio for the riffle design cross section is
close to 12 at 11.4, while the entrenchment ratio (ER) will range from 1.7-2.2. The bankfull cross
sectional area will be designed to be approximately 187 square feet. This cross section area plots
between the urban and rural curves. A bankfull bench approximately 10' to 20' wide will be
excavated on the left bank and right banks. Stream alignment adjustments will be implemented
according to site constraints, stable meander wavelength/bankfull width ratios, and radius of
curvature ratios. These parameters along with the rest of the existing conditions and design
parameters are summarized in Table 1.
Sediment Sampling
Buck Engineering collected sediment samples upstream and downstream of the project reach
using pavement-subpavement and modified Wolman 100-count sampling techniques. The
existing creek is covered by a concrete bridge deck and could not be accessed for sediment
sampling due to confined space entry limitations. Most riffles contain a large percentage of
embedded riprap sized particles that appear to have sloughed into the channel from past bank
stabilization efforts. The embedded nature and algal growth on these larger particles indicate that
they are not likely mobile during bankfull events. For our pavement-subpavement sample, we
selected a location that appeared to be most representative of the mobile portion of the riffles. We
conducted a wetted perimeter zigzag pebble count at a riffle to characterize the pavement
materials.
Buck Engineering Page 3
LSC Midtown Reach Summary March 2, 2007

Sediment Analysis
We checked sediment transport competency of the existing channel reaches using the
methodology developed by Rosgen and Jessup (Jessup, personal communication, 2002). This
methodology is based on dimensionless critical shear stress that is determined from ratios of
pavement to subpavement particle sizes. From the dimensionless critical shear stress estimates,
critical depth and water surface slope can be estimated and used to check a design. We also
used a boundary shear stress calculation and a modified version of Shield's curve to estimate the
largest particle size that can be moved in the channel. Our stream enhancement work will not
change the slope of the reach, and will only slightly decrease the existing cross-section of the
creek. We investigated whether the stream can be expected to aggrade or degrade over time
given its existing slope and proposed cross-section geomorphic characteristics.
Our calculations indicate that the existing stream slope of 0.0021 feet per foot is near to the critical
slope of 0.0029 feet per foot needed to transport the median bed material. The proposed bankfull
max depth of 5.5 feet is more than the critical depth of 4.1 feet. This result indicates that
degradation could be a risk along the project reach. Proposed in-stream boulder structures will
provide grade control as safety measures against degradation. The shallow bedrock observed
upstream and downstream of the project site will also prevent degradation.
Aggradation is not expected to be a problem because of these calculation results and because not
much coarse sediment is being supplied to the system. The supply of coarse sediment in the size
range greater than about 90 mm is very limited in a developed, urban watershed such as Little
Sugar Creek. Furthermore, the existing channel appears to be moving its sediment load
adequately as evidenced by the lack of mid-channel bars, and the design section does not
represent an extensive variation from the existing condition.
Referring to the modified Shield's curve, the largest movable particle size for the channel is 100 to
200 millimeters (mm), which indicates that the 70 mm maximum-size particle collected during the
subpavement sampling will likely be mobile during bankfull events. This movement will prevent
aggradation.
Buck Engineering Page 4
LSC Midtown Reach Summary March 2, 2007

Existing Conditions
Geomo hic Surve
MEDIAN MIN MAX
B4c
10.6
1000
222.5 I 181 _ )
4.5
....
48.5 47.7 4y.1
4.6 4.0 4.9
10.7 9.9 12.0
6.3 5.8 6.8
1.4 1.3 1.5
2.0 1.7 2.3
119.0 63.0 >170
1F 13 >1A

0.0022
0.0022
1.0
0.0141 u.u13b u.u14b
5.0 4.9 5.2
0.0005 0.0000 0.0009
0.18 0.00 0.33
8.60
1.8

53.0 46.8 Sb.l
1.1 1.0 1.2
174 95 239
3.6 2.0 4.9
0.18
0.7
4.4
90
>2048
D esi n Parameters
MIN MAX Rationale
c same as existin
10.6
1000 same as existin
187 b/t rural and urban curve
5.4
46.0
4.1
11.3
5.5
1.4 RR
1.0 P2/3 enhancement
78.0 99.0 10' l0 20' bench and 2:1 side slo e
17 22

0.0022 exist conditions
0.0021 sl' ht meander
1.03 little s ace to address attem
0.0042 0.0063
2.0 3.0 Cam bell
0.0000 0.0006
0.00 0.30 RR
8.1 10.1
2.0 2.5
0. 36 ACOE
46.0 50.0
1.0 1.1 RR
92.0 207.0
2.0 4.5 RR

0
W
L\Projects\LSC MidtownlAssessment\Desyn\Desgn Parameters_Midtown.xls, LSC Midtown 3/2/2007 @ 2:58 PM
Table 1
Design Parameters
LSC Midtown Reach: Independence to Baxter

Little Sugar Creek Midtown Reach
Photo Log
Buck Engineering
.' rw '. p~ysl
a 8 v

t 6
y.,
M
~
C
'
~'
~
y .~~ ~ ..
E ,y
_
y ., ~ 'q, .. ~ ~ /
.N 'h. ~
' s !
~; vii... ~ ~
{
~.~;~

f ~1: .may.

~; ~ ~ ~..
~ >r : .~ a
+` t
n ~ m

a ~ .~ ~.. R
i ~
~
'~
. .
.
~
Street
Photo 1-Looking downstream from Baxter Photo 2-Looking upstream at Baxter Street bridge.
brid e.
T

~.
,,
. _ N ~
~.. _

~y y~/i~

~~ ~
~
T
~
.~
~~' 1~.-. ~1

T •.
_
s
~
_.
~
.
~. ~ _ _.
!' ..
Photo 3-Looking upstream under Midtown Square Photo 4-Midtown Square Mall parking cap. Stream
cap. Note concrete banks and piers supporting flows under cap.
concrete deck over creek.
1
~~ ~ ~ `~
~.
.,
~ Y
e
~..
...
'til ! ' d ~

m
~_
.: ~ - ti
_~
.
.~ +.
~ _.
- ~i
I ~. ' ~ .
T
_

b Eby kLA ~vyC6 eHI ~ ?q~X +~~°r~ 2~ F,.
n ~
~
~
~
~~
~
~~
~ `.F ~ _
; ~....,
.., 1
Ak
~ ~~
~
!~"
~
,
~
d~pyi
~`
~ #.l~;''.' ~
,c~
r ~ ' ~ ~
`~
~
it
T 1 ~ ~ 1

r ~ a~?' : ~ `
`~
. ~^ ~
_
~ ~ ~', - -
~
~ III tff

..
A ~
~-s!
. ,.
~'~ .

._
.
i
,«~~.~ . - «,...,.,-,
i,.
a~;
Photo 5- Approximately 20-foot gap between Photo 6-Looking downstream from Independence
Midtown Square cap and Independence Boulevard Boulevard bridge toward Midtown Square cap.
brid e. Stream com letel ca ed.
L:\Projects\LSC Midtown\Documents\Permits\401404\PhotoLog_Midtown.doc

LITTLE SUGAR CREEK -MIDTOWN REACH
STREAM ENHANCEMENT PLAN
Y 0 7- 0 4 0 3 30~ SUBMITTAL
r~
AVENUE
j I ~•,
J
\ ~~ .l 11
°~ \
•+
-~..
I
.;;;~~- KINGS DRIVE -
~ }\
J , J ~ P.
~,' a~ j
,, /, %.
%, jyi ~~ i
,c;7 /
~j'_ %
. ,
~,..-° ---~--~----~---- J
KENILWORTH - _ ~-- _.----
__.--~ ,
~ --
PROPOSED CROSS VANE e e
STRUCTURE ~ P0.0POSED CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE XX
5000 LEGEND
~ - ~~ PROPOSED THALWEG PLIGNMENT
- - - - -PROPOSED TOP OF BANKIBANKFULL
-0 ^ o o PROPOSED SILT FENCE F00.
STREAM ENHANCEMENTWORK ppp~~~
630 PROPOSED CONTOUR~1'INTERVAL) y" e
X650.0 PROPOSED GRADING SPOT ELEVATIONS ~Jl~(j PROPOSED J-HOOK VANE XX
\---/~
\/ EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO TEMPORARY STREAM 8
/`~ l - - - ~ CROSSING ~
UP BE RELOCATED BY OTHERS
SEE DEMO PLAN ~ ~
6.5 EXISTING CONTOUR (2' INiERVA1) ~~{{ ~ry (~y\
-- - PROPOSED GREENWAY ^~fI1~~ U~ PROPOSED ROCK VANE XX
GRADING AND SITEWORK 1l~uJ'1`~t"JJ111T
D ~U
~ ~~q1
~~
R WAt~~4~~gc~'
pEN ~Q gS
Kun~P+
3=~J3E v.., ~~
- _3~^-5.2-e~cy
NOTES
M M W
• o
1. TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN IS 2002 DIGITAL TOPOGRAPHY
(2' CONTOURS) FROM MECKLENBURG COUNTY.
2. REFER TO GREENWAY PLAN SHEETS FOR WORK
EAST OF STREAM.
3. PROPOSED GRADING SHOWN AS t' CONTOURS.
PROPOSED GRADING IN STREAM NOT SHOWN BELOW
TOP OF BANK. REFER TO CROSS-SECTION SHEETS
FOR DETAILED GRADING INfORMAT10N.
4, MATERIALS SHWlO NOT BE STOCKPILED INSIDE THE
COMMUNITY ENCROACHMENT fL00DWAY LINE. REFER
TO MECKLENBURG COUNTY FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE.
c
r=
bE
rLL:
e^B
zE'
..> )
O~q~
O,~~JG
~y
G
~~ ~ -a
~~ ~ g ~
~ lll~~~~
~~~
Q
Z
W
W
~ Z
Y ag
W c Z
W w E
~ W
U ^~
Z
~Irc=
QUaZ
y w
~ o w
U
W3p~
J~m~
~-HwQ
~~oj
J~ED

Up~€
.m ~. o
~ i~
oU~ a~a ~U

I
I i
~ i
I
I r
I '
O
~_ ~
a
w
~
I J

D7
~ ~~
j ~ U
Z '
~
~
,,yy
'k qY' I',4 W
O
Z
W
~~ ~
- I 6
s W
O
2
- ~ l~
~I
%o_.i
\I~_
~1~~
~~

~~
pw.
n ex.r'
- PROPOSED GREENWAY m. oisise~
L
_ ~~~ \
-~ - ~ \
`__---`--_-u_ _~-----~ - ~~~
,-
i
Q
-.. _
i==
\ ~ 5+50~~ ~ ~ I =
~ °''~ \ 55r~ 55+50 5 0 + ' / ~ ~
2~ ~ IXISTING SEWER ~l~_, ~
y
ROPOSED REEOCA7ED w'". I
EWER
pVE
KEN~LWpRTN i
~; x
~` ~ 1 a
• ~
\ ~ - / /
~ '~, ~ ~ .
~ ~~ ~~/"
_- _ __.
I -'
~7
b~
~r s
era
OA,(tpJe',CO~
~y
G
~~~
~~
~~~
to riS
~s':¢.
2~
Z
W
W
z
O
~[ a
W s
W w Z
U i a
a F
n
QUa F
Q> w
~ 0 Z
EnZ~=
W / J W
~~wQ
Q Y l!~
w; °€
~~
~ „:
-9~G-63Z-a9a~
~. ~ ONE-CA_6 AC-~\*.~ p I C g p ~na~ wE~
.5 - - ooauo~A ~E ~

~9
i^
~a
-4
zoa
:a
~pQG~o~
~~S~J
day
G
~a~ 1~s
£~~
~k -,.
~ tea
i1~}~~:
~~
~,
~'
NSF
Mecklenburg County
D.B. 16600-798
Tax Id:125-2CI-47
2Q
Z
W
W
(~
O_
a
Y ~
~1.~ tt
Z
U =g
a~
QudF
j~~z
~nz°=
w~~ Z
~W
~°wQ
~~~~
-~w
~~~w~i
a~=o~c ~o~ o- ~ <om ~N
cam- ~-eao-e3z-ieaa
.. - - -ae m c o m~~~ ~b~`m W Vl