20091225 Ver 1_401 Application_20091109

t Charlotte-Mecklenburg
STORM
W?ffl"?',WATEn
600 E. Fourth Street
' Charlotte, NC 28202
Fax [phone]
Services
' October 29, 2009
' Ms. Cyndi Karoly 0 9_ j 2 2 5
NC DENR
n ??
Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Unit O L5 ^ ? Uv
' 1650 Mail Service Center (?'
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
1-40V 1 3 2009
' Subject: Pre-Construction Notification/401 Certification Package
Upper Stoney Creek Restoration Project DENR-WATER OIM ITY
Charlotte, North Carolina WETLV=ANDSTORMWATER@RRU
' Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find enclosed five (5) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of our PCN package for the
' Upper Stoney Creek Restoration Project and a check of $570.00 for the permit fee. As part of
this submittal, we have included the following supporting data on the project:
' • PCN form,
• Supporting documentation,
• Map Figures (Vicinity Map, Topographic Map, Existing Conditions Map, and Proposed
' Design Map), and
• (3) full size and (2)'/2-size copies of the Plan Set
The purpose of the project is to improve water quality and by reducing sediment and nutrient
loads and restore hydrologic conditions by restoring channel profile and function and
reconnecting the stream to its floodplain. In addition, this project will improve aquatic and
riparian habitat by promoting natural riffle and pool features.
Table 1. Proposed Design Approach
Proposed Project
Feature Design Approach Existing
Condition Design Condition
Northern Tributary - Reach 1 Restoration (Priority I) 1,862 LF 2,102 LF
Stoney Creek - Reach 1 Enhancement 11 2,712 LF 2,712 LF
Stoney Creek - Reach 2 Restoration (Priority I) 899 LF 1,019 LF
Stoney Creek - Reach 3 Preservation 860 LF 860 LF
Stoney Creek Wetland Preservation 3.64 acres 3.64 acres
Polk and White - Reach 1 Enhancement II 438 LF 438 LF
Polk and White - Reach 2 Restoration
(Enhancement 1) 705 LF 705 LF
UT1 Restoration (Priority 1) 29 LF 88 LF
•
Ob To report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311
http://stormwater.charmeek.org
CHARIA7TE I*.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
STORM
-?? ,? -? WATER
Services
October 29, 2009
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NC DENR
Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification/401 Certification Package
Upper Stoney Creels Restoration Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Karoly:
600 E. Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Fat 704.336.6586
Please find enclosed five (5) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of our PCN package for the
Upper Stoney Creek Restoration Project and a check of $570.00 for the permit fee. As part of
this submittal, we have included the following supporting data on the project:
• PCN form,
• Supporting documentation,
• Map Figures (Vicinity Map, Topographic Map, Existing Conditions Map, and Proposed
Design Map), and
• (3) full size and (2) 1/2-size copies of the Plan Set
The purpose of the project is to improve water quality and by reducing sediment and nutrient
loads and restore hydrologic conditions by restoring channel profile and function and
reconnecting the stream to its floodplain. In addition, this project will improve aquatic and
riparian habitat by promoting natural riffle and pool features.
Table 1. Proposed Design Approach
Proposed Project
Feature Design Approach Existing
Condition Design Condition
Northern Tributary - Reach 1 Restoration (Priority I) 1,862 LF 2,102 LF
Stoney Creek - Reach 1 Enhancement II 2,712 LF 2,712 LF
Stoney Creek - Reach 2 Restoration (Priority 1) 899 LF 1,019 LF
Stoney Creek - Reach 3 Preservation 860 LF 860 LF
Stoney Creek Wetland Preservation 3.64 acres 3.64 acres
Polk and White - Reach 1 Enhancement II 438 LF 438 LF
Polk and White - Reach 2 Restoration
(Enhancement I) 705 LF 705 LF
UT1 Restoration (Priority 1) 29 LF 88 LF
M To report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311
\\? http://stormwater. charmeck.or;
CHARLOTTE- 19.
Proposed Project
Feature Design Approach Existing
Condition Design Condition
UT2 Preservation 37 LF 37 LF
UT3 Preservation 200 LF 200 LF
7,742 LF 8,161 LF
TOTAL 3.64 acres 3.64 acres
Please note that the restoration, enhancement, and preservation components of this project are
currently being considered for mitigation credit by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon
acceptance, the credits will be applied to the City of Charlotte's Mitigation Bank for future use on
projects as allowed by the City's Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI).
A PCN submittal package has also been submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers. If you
have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or jkarlawcharlottenc.<-ov.
Sincerely,
?.1

Jarrod J. Karl
Mitigation Administrator
Enclosures
OF W ATF9OG
O -c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.0 November 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. 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: Upper Stoney Creek Stream Restoration Project
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name on Recorded Deed: Mecklenburg County

3b.
Deed Book and Page No. 5727: 858; Please note that the project currently resides within parcels owned by
Mecklenburg County. Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte are in the process
of establishing a conservation easement along the entire project area. The
conservation easement will be held by the City of Charlotte, in perpetuity.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (Danee McGee)
3d. Street address: 600 E. Fourth St.
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202
3f. Telephone no.: 704-336-4102
3g. Fax no.: 704-336-6586
3h. Email address: dmcgeeC>ci.charlotte. nc.us
Page 1 of 15
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
Section A. Applicant Information, continued
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: City of Charlotte Storm Water Services
4b. Name: Jarrod Karl
4c. Business name
(if applicable): N/A
4d. Street address: 600 E. Fourth St., 14`h Floor
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202
4f. Telephone no.: 704-432-0966
4g. Fax no.: 704-336-6586
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: N/A
5b. Business name
(if applicable): N/A
5c. Street address: N/A
5d. City, state, zip: N/A
5e. Telephone no.: N/A
5f. Fax no.: N/A
5g. Email address: N/A
Page 2 of 15
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 029-34-233
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.357481'N - 80.767264`W
1 c. Property size:
Property size within conservation easement - 26.7 acres
Limits of Disturbance - 9.56 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Stoney Creek, Northern Tributary & Polk and White
proposed project: Tributary (Tributaries to Stoney Creek), and UT1 to
Northern Tributary and UT2 and UT3 to Stoney Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Stoney Creek - C (reference for classification of
unclassified tributaries: 15A NCAC 2B .0200 (i))
2c. River basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee
Page 3 of 15
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The Upper Stoney Creek watershed lies within the northern edge of the City of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, approximately 10 miles northeast of downtown. The watershed is bound by the following major thoroughfares:
Johnston Oehler Road to the north, Mallard Creek Road to the west, and Polk and White Road to the east. A map of the
project watershed boundary is shown in the Topographic Map. All tributaries of Stoney Creek generally flow to the east
toward a culvert at Mallard Creek Road where it drains a total watershed area of approximately 1.8 square miles or 1,167
acres. Land use in the watershed is approximately 40 percent public, 30 percent residential, 5 percent commercial, and
25 percent rural and agricultural.
Existing Conditions Characterization of Stream Reaches:
The Northern Tributary channel (1,862 LF) within the project area is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow regime
dominated primarily by groundwater recharge from a moderately forested watershed. Recent construction of the Mallard
Creek High School campus has slightly increased drainage density and storm water runoff inputs to the channel but much
of it appears to be diffused by onsite swales before entering the channel. The Northern Tributary channel is significantly
incised as evidenced by bank height ratios greater than 2 (between 2.1 and 3.9). Northern Tributary was assessed as
two reaches. Reach 1 (1,139 LF) is classified as a Rosgen G5c and Reach 2 (723 LF) is classified as a Rosgen F5.
Each reach of Northern Tributary exhibits characteristics of a stream that has been channelized and has subsequently
incised to regain a stable bed slope. Both G5 and F5 stream types have low sinuosity, high bank height ratios, and low
entrenchment ratios. The bed material found in the reaches is predominantly sand with interspersed areas of gravel.
Channel incision has effectively lowered the water table and the stream bed below the root zone of nearly all riparian
vegetation. Bank stability is compromised when root systems are not in contact with the toe of the bank slope providing
resistance to near bank shear stress. Bank instability is a symptom of channel evolution, demonstrating the stream
working to increase sinuosity and recreate a floodplain. Increased bank erosion and sediment load are a consequence of
bank instability and are of particular concern on this system.
Stoney Creek (4,471 LF) is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow regime comprised of both groundwater recharge
and storm water runoff from a moderately developed and partially forested watershed. The channel is incised as
evidenced by bank height ratios in the 1.6 to 1.9 range. Stoney Creek was assessed as three separate reaches.
Reach 1 (2,712 LF) is classified as a Rosgen C4 and Reach 2 (899 LF) as an incised E5. Each reach exhibits
characteristics of a stream that has been channelized and has subsequently incised to regain a stable bed slope. An
incised E stream type has a low width to depth ratio and a high entrenchment ratio like that of an E-type stream; however,
it has a low sinuosity and high bank height ratios similar to a G-type stream. A C4 stream has higher entrenchment ratios
and hence more frequent floodplain access. Reach 3 is predominately braided as it flows through a large wetland system
that lies on both sides of the reach and extends outward to the toe of slope. An 150-foot wide overhead transmission
line right-of-way crosses midway through the reach. The disturbed riparian vegetation within the right-of-way is
dominated by invasive species such as blackberry and multiflora rose.
Polk and White Tributary (1,143 LF) is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow regime dominated by storm water
runoff from a moderately developed and minimally forested watershed. However, bank height ratios in the 1 to 1.3 range
indicate that little incision has occurred in the areas of data collection despite having the most abrupt changes in land use
over the past 15 years in the Upper Stoney Creek watershed. Polk and White was assessed as two separate reaches.
Reach 2, the upstream half of Polk and White Reach (705 LF), appears laterally unstable as evidenced by the
downstream migration of steeply, eroding meander bends.
Polk and White Reach 1 (438 LF) is classified as Rosgen E4, while Reach 2 is classified as a Rosgen G-type channel.
Reach 2 exhibits characteristics of a stream that has been channelized and has subsequently incised to regain a stable
bed slope. E stream types have high entrenchment ratios and low width to depth ratios. G stream types have low
sinuosity, high bank height ratios, and low entrenchment ratios. The bed material found throughout both Polk and White
Reach 1 and Reach 2 is predominantly gravel with areas of finer material occurring in pools.
There are three Unnamed Tributaries and 5 jursidictional wetlands (3.64 acres) within the project limits. UT 1 (29 LF) to
Northern Tributary is a perennial channel located just north of Northern Tributary. The channel is currently incised and
has no access to its floodplain. A headcut has formed on UT1 so that the channel can meet the lower elevation of an
incised Northern Tributary. UT 2 (37 LF) to Stoney Creek is a perennial channel located south of Wetland 8 and
southeast to Stoney Creek Reach 3. UT2 is currently stable, connected to its floodplain, loses its definition of a defined
channel 37 LF into Wetland 8. UT 3 (200 LF) to Stoney Creek is an intermittent channel located southeast of Wetland 8.
Wetlands 1, 8, 9A and 13 are located adjaced to Stoney Creek Reach 2, while wetland 14 is located north of the Stoney
Reach 2 downstream of its confluence with Northern Tributary.
Page 4 of 15
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
Project Information and Prior Project History
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3.64
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
7,742 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the Upper Stoney Creek Stream restoration project is to enhance the physical, chemical, and biological
integrity of Stoney Creek and its tributaries through implementation of natural channel design principles. This project also
intends to reduce flooding in the watershed, which will be achieved by installing a floodplain culvert at Polk and White
Road and by providing floodplain access, where feasible, along aforementioned stream reaches. This project will be
presented for mitigation credits to the City of Charlotte's Umbrella Mitigation Bank.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project approach is to restore the onsite channels based on need and feasibility as determined by the geomorphic
assessment. Four main categories of restoration were deemed appropriate to fully restore the project site. These
approaches are detailed below. See the Proposed Design Map for additional information.
Full Restoration - Rosgen Priority Level 1
Northern Tributary and Stoney Creek Reach 2 will undergo full, Priority 1 restoration where a new channel connected to the
historic floodplain will be created. In-stream structures such as j-hooks, constructed riffles, and vanes will be used to
enhance habitat and provide bedform diversity, as well as to provide grade control and bank protection for the new
channels. Native reforestation of the riparian buffer will occur upon completion of construction. In addition, a short
section of UT1 will also undergo Priority Level 1 Restoration to raise the channel to meet the new bed elevation of
Northern Tributary. Construction of these portions of the project will entail the use of excavators, bulldozers, and track
trucks.
Enhancement Level 1 - Rosgen Priority Level 3
Polk and White Tributary Reach 2 will undergo Priority 3 restoration, where channel dimension and profile will be altered
through structure installation, bank grading, creation of bankfull benches, and a short section of channel realignment.
In-stream structures such as j-hooks, constructed riffles, and vanes will be used to enhance habitat and provide bank
protection. Native reforestation of the riparian buffer will occur upon completion of construction. Construction of these
portions of the project will entail the use of excavators, bulldozers, and track trucks.
Enhancement Level 2 - Preservation with Vegetative Enhancement
Stoney Creek Reach 1 and Polk and White Tributary Reach 1 are geomorphically stable and will undergo invasive species
removal and native reforestation of the riparian zone. This will improve the habitat value of the riparian zone and will
enhance stability as native vegetation matures. Construction of these portions will be largely completed by hand, but all
terrain vehicles may be used to carry planting supplies into the areas.
Preservation
Stoney Creek Reach 3, UT2, UT3, and all wetland complexes will be preserved in their current state. No activities are
planned in this area.
Polk and White Floodplain Culvert
A floodplain culvert, designed to alleviate road flooding during the 100-year storm event, will be installed under Polk and
White Road. This culvert is just upstream of Polk and White Tributary Reach 2 and the culvert is designed to outlet onto
the proposed floodplain bench to provide conveyance between the upstream and downstream floodplains. Construction
of this section of the project will require use of a crane, a bulldozer, and dump trucks.
Page 5 of 15
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ® Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made.
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Michael Baker
Name (if known): Ian Eckardt Enginnering, Inc.
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
An initial jurisdictional determination was conducted on 4/24/07 - 4/27/07 and submitted to the Corps for approval on
6/5/08; however, project limits have been adjusted so an additi onal determination was conducted on 2/11/09. The JD
request was submitted on 2/26/09.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 6 of 15
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or impact (if known) DWQ - non-404, other)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No Corps
? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.10
2h. Comments: SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR WETLAND IMPACTS. WETLAND NUMBERING DOES NOT COINCIDE
WITH COLUMN 2a.
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.
Stream impact Type of Stream name Perennial (PER) or Average stream width (feet) Impact
number - impact intermittent (INT)? length
Permanent (P) or (linear feet)
Temporary (T)
P-
Restorati
S1 ®P ®T Tn Stoney Creek ® PER ? INT 10 899
Excavati Reach 2
on &
Grading
P-
Restorati
S2 ®P ®T Tn Northern
Tributary ® PER ? INT 10 2,100.9
Excavati
on &
Grading
P-
S3 ®P ®T Restorati Polk and White ® PER ? INT 10 892.1
on and Reach 2
Culvert
Page 7 of 15
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
I nstallatio
n
T-
Excavati
on &
Grading
P-
Restorati
on
S4 ®P ? T T- UT1 ® PER ? INT 5 70
Excavati
on &
Grading
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
3g. Total stream and tributary impacts 3,962
3h. Comments:
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 ind ividual) list all o en water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
- Permanent (if
(P) or applicable)
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
M. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
Page 8 of 15
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction pro osed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond
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:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact (square Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for impact Stream name mitigation feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
131 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No
B3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 9 of 15
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
This is a stream restoration project that includes a conservation easement over the entire project area. The easement is
to be held by the City of Charlotte and will restrict any future development of the site. The proposed impacts are required
to restore stream functions, reconnect the stream channels to their floodplains, improve water quality, relieve downstream
flooding, and stabilize eroding stream banks. The project will ultimately result in a positive impact to the stream corridor
by enhancing stream function and aquatic habitat, improving water quality, increasing the water table elevation in
adjacent wetlands, and increase the overall stream length from 7,742 LF to 8,161 LF.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Temporary stream crossings will be installed throughout the site to minimize impacts to existing streams. Silt fence and
high hazard fencing will be installed around wetland areas that lie within active work zones to keep equipment and activity
out of the wetland minimizing any additional wetland impacts. In Wetland 1 and 13, where the limits of disturbance lies
within the limits of the wetland, silt fence and high hazard fence will not be installed within the wetland boundaries;
instead a wetland mat will be placed within the area to minimize impacts to the wetland from construction equipment. No
work will be performed outside the limits of disturbance; therefore, minimizing additional impacts. In addition, wetland
impacts are positive in nature and should exhibit a rise in base flow elevation due Priority I Restoration on reaches
adjacent to or abutting. Construction practices will follow guidelines from the June 2006 Edition of the NC Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, the Charlotte Land Development Standards Manual, and the City of
Charlotte Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, or the more restrictive of any standards that conflict.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached.. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm, cool, cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h.. Comments:
Page 10 of 15
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation, continued
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ? No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
Total buffer mitigation required:
6c. 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).
6d. Comments:
Page 11 of 15
PCN Form - November 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? ? Yes ? No
2. Determination if the Project Requires a Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Does the project require a Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit? ? Yes ® No
2b. Is the project subject to General Certification 3704 or 3705? ? Yes ® No
3. Determination of Stormwater Review Jurisdiction
3a. Is this project subject to any of the following state-implemented stormwater ? Coastal counties
? HQW
management programs (check all that apply)? ? ORW
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the DWQ and one copy of the ? Session Law 2006-246
approved stormwater management plan. ? Other:
This is a City of Charlotte project
and though the City of Charlotte is
certified to implement the State's
storm water program, they cannot
3b. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? regulate themselves; however, this
project will not provide any net
increases to impervious area
therefore this section is not
applicable.
3c. Is this local government certified to implement a state stormwater program? ? Yes ? No
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the local government and one copy
of the approved stormwater management plan (or one copy of the approved
Stormwater management plan stamped as approved).
4. Information Required for DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
4a. What is the overall percent imperviousness according to the most current site plan? No impervious area will be added
within the project limits.
4b. Does this project contain any areas that meet the criteria for "high density" per ? Yes ® No
General Certifications 3704 and 3705?
4c. If the site is over 24% impervious and/or contains high density areas, then provide a brief narrative description of the
stormwater management plan.
N/A
4d. Has a completed BMP Supplement Form with all required items been submitted ? Yes ® No
for each stormwater BMP?
Page 12 of 15
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 13 of 15
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
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?
E] 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?
Species of Federal and State Status in Mecklenburg County
Family Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Habitat Present / Biological
Conclusion
Vertebrates
Accipitridae Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T T No/No Effect
Invertebrates
Unionidae Lasmigona decorata Carolina Heelsplitter E E No/No Effect
Vascular Plants
Asteraceae Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower E E-SC Marginal/No Effect
Asteraceae Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower E E Marginal/No Effect
Anacardiaceae Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac E E-SC Marginal/No Effect
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or fauna is
determined to be in jeopardy.
T Threatened
SC A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under regulations
adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants).
No federal or state protected species were observed in or adjacent to the project area during the field survey. Habitat
characteristics for for Smooth Coneflower, Schweinitz's Sunflower, and Michaux's Sumac do exist as defined by the
USFWS for Mecklenburg County; however, the conditions of the habitat for species survival are only marginal. Critical
habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter, as defined by the USFWS, is not designated in the proposed project area. Based on
a review of the NHP database, the only federal protected species known to have occurred within the 1:24,000 USGS
quadrangle in which the project site is located (the Derita quadrangle) is the Carolina heelsplitter. This species was found
in the quadrangle historically, but there are no current known occurrences. The state-protected Carolina creekshell
(Villosa vaughaniana) is also known to occur in the Derita quadrangle.
Sources:
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Website, 2007. http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.htmi
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Website, 2007, http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/county%201ists.htm
Page 14 of 15
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
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?
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Website, 2007. http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/county°/`201ists.htm
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?
An internet query of the NRIS database was conducted to determine if any properties listed in the NRHP were located
near the project area. No listed properties were found. Inquiries were sent to OSA and NC SHPO on August 9, 2007 to
request information on any resources currently listed in the National Register that may be in the vicinity of the Upper
Stoney Creek project site.
On December 21, 2007, a letter was received from SHPO stating that upon their review there are no historic resources
within the project site that would be affected by pursuance of the proposed project. As of February 5, 2009 no reply in
respect to the initial correspondence with OSA has occurred. All correspondence with OSA and SHPO is included in the
PCN packet.
Source:
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Website, 2007. http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.htmi
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 project has been submitted to Mecklenburg County to obtain a
Floodplain Development permit and a conditional approval has been obtained from the Mecklenburg County Flood
Mitigation Program. The conditional approval is based on the submittal of the signed and sealed plan set for Upper
Stoney Creek Stream Restoration Project and will be submitted upon approval of the 100% design plan by the City of
Charlotte. A copy of the Conditional Approval Letter is included in the PCN package.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 3710455200J
(Effective Date 3/2/2009)

Jarrod Karl j
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant Date
is provided.)
Page 15 of 15
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
U
(Q
E
c0
a?
co
`c
c?
N
U
cII
N
O
C
O
O
O
N
.C
N
N
Q
O
U
Q 04 ca
+N
O
O
c C) c
°
o
c?a 4
0U CL
O
O c
O Q
E v
Co (D U
U) (6
y L Q-
U) o E
U ?
Co i 'D Co cu
a--
(D
O N (o
U) c °
L O i
0
0--o

CL
E N
p 0 0 o co
v o 0 0 0

Q o
N
r

O
r
r
v O
E
C
y
C)
6
'a
?
-. O ?
4 C
C
O Q U)
Q qJ
CL (n
Q
. O O O
Q
o ; U U U
U

N
.O

N
N N N
U-
LL O O

'a
V- LL LL
N m
d
O
d -a C

?' fa O
d Y
N 3

O
' c
o
- c
o 0
- c
o c
-
0
6 :r
0 -r-
0 =
0
>' °L

E
~ m 0 co cD cu U

U
X -o -0
X -0
N w m w m W m
r d
r

M
O _ C

LC d
IL E
ca
L
N E O

C
Dr. Jeffrey Crow 8/9/2007
Deputy Secretary of Archives and History
State Historic Preservation Officer
4610 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4610
Subject: Stream Restoration Project in Mecklenburg County
Dear Dr. Crow
We are currently working with Mecklenburg County to restore portions of Stoney Creek and
two associated unnamed tributaries in Mecklenburg County. The proposed project is
classified under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as a minor construction activity
(15 NCAC 01 .0408 (1) (c)). While this is a state-funded project, permits will be obtained
from the US Army Corps of Engineers as well as the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (410/404 permits).
To comply with North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a), we are requesting that the
State Historic Preservation Office review the proposed project to ensure that it does not
impact any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places established pursuant to Public Law 89-665,16 U.S.C. 470.
We are enclosing a map of the project site that includes proposed limits of disturbance.
Stream restoration work is confined to the floodplain of the project reaches. The only
additional areas of disturbance are four stormwater best management practice (BMP)
areas, also shown in the enclosed topographic map. No architectural structures or
archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for
restoration purposes.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence
of any properties or sites listed or in the process of being listed in the National Register of
Historic Places. Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel
free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
t!", 11A
Ken Gilland
Baker Engineering, NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
cc:
Dolores A. Hall
Deputy State Archaeologist
cmik tge .
M ST?Tfio
.??-Ww .
Forth Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 21, 2007
Ken Gilland
Baker Engineering, NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Re: Stoney Creek Stream Restoration, Mecklenburg County, ER 07-1688
Dear Mr. Gilland.
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Thank you for your letter of August 9, 2007, concerning the above project. We apologize for the delay in our
response.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on 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, 1
?eter Sandbeck
Location: 109 East)ones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 MailingAddresa 4617 Mail service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Dolores A. Hall 2/19/2007
Deputy State Archaeologist
4619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4619
Subject: Stream Restoration in Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Hall,
We are currently working with Mecklenburg County to restore portions of Stoney Creek and
two associated unnamed tributaries in Mecklenburg County. The proposed project is
classified under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as a minor construction activity
(15 NCAC 01 .0408 (1) (c)). While this is a state-funded project, permits will be obtained
from the US Army Corps of Engineers as well as the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (410/404 permits).
To comply with North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a), we are requesting that the
Office of State Archaeology, review the proposed project to ensure that it does not impact
any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places established pursuant to Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470. We are
enclosing a map of the project site that includes proposed limits of disturbance. Stream
restoration work is confined to the floodplain of the project reaches. The only additional
areas of disturbance are four stormwater best management practice (BMP) areas, also
shown in the enclosed topographic map. No architectural structures or archeological
artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration
purposes.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence
of any properties or sites listed or in the process of being listed in the National Register of
Historic Places. Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel
free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,

Ken Gilland
Baker Engineering, NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
cc:
Dr. Jeffrey Crow
Deputy Secretary of Archives and History

..,
Charlotte-Mecklenburg 700 North Tryon S t r e e t
Charlotte, NC 28202
Tun
WATETR Fax: [phone]
Services
April 1, 2009
Mr. Neal Banerjee, PE, CFM
Michael Baker Engineering
1447 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Upper Stoney Creek Stream Restoration Project
Floodplain Development Permit Application # 1534
Comments on Preliminary Design Plans Subset
Dear Mr. Banerjee:
This responds to your submittal requesting a Floodplain Development Permit for the proposed
development along the FEMA-regulated floodplain of Stoney Creek, within the jurisdictional
area of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina. The City of Charlotte has delegated authority to
William Tingle of the Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation Program to act as the Floodplain
Administrator. The Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation Program has completed an initial
review of the items that you have submitted to determine if the submittal satisfies the conditions
of the City of Charlotte Floodplain Regulations.
Based upon the application materials received March 17, 2009 with your narrative letter dated
March 9, 2009, it is our understanding that the proposed floodplain impacts consist of
development in the Community and FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area of Stoney Creek at Polk
and White Road and in the Community Special Flood Hazard Area upstream of the limit of
detailed study (PID 02924233). A series of stream enhancement and restoration techniques,
along with addition of a new box culvert beneath Polk and White Road, are proposed to decrease
pollutant loading, improve habitats, and reduce road overtopping. Sheets 10, 13, and 14 of the
Working Plan Set were included with the application. Other proposed work associated with this
project is assumed to be outside the regulatory floodplain.
Conditional approval from the Flood Mitigation Program for the proposed work is granted. A
final decision will be based upon completed design plans certified by a North Carolina
Professional Engineer or Registered Landscape Architect. Please see Charlotte Floodplain
Regulations Section 9-62 (b) 4 for new language regarding permit application requirements.
Revisions to the ordinance were adopted February 9, 2009.
\I!/ To report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311
.,..,,, http://stormwater.charmeck.org
CI IAlil#1'I'1`ti.
If no response to this request for additional information is received within 90 days of the date of
this notice, any subsequent request will be treated as an original submittal and it will be subject to
all current submittal procedures. If you are unable to meet the 90-day deadline for submittal of
required items, and would like us to continue processing your request, you must request in writing
an extension of the deadline including (1) the reason why the data cannot be submitted within the
requested timeframe, and (2) a new date for the submittal of the data.
The Flood Mitigation Program staff looks forward to working with you as this project progresses.
Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation Program

David C. Love, PE, CFM
Project Manager
704-432-0006
David.Love@Mecklenbur Cg ountyNC.gov
Attachment
GAStorm Water\Flood Mitigation\FDPs\Floodway_Reviews\Active FDPs\1534 - Upper Stoney Creek Stream
Restoration\1 st response to app 1534.doc
1
I HUC 0304010501
03-08-37

Project Site
03-08-34

19
8
12

Map Vicinity vlclncy 1viap
LEGEND Upper Stoney Creels
ChulotteMKk)nb,,g Interstate NCD\VQ Sub-basin Stream Restoration Project
?S1 U?Ll??1 US Route USGS Hydrologic Unit Charlotte, NC
WATER _
s ,,,.os1 Charlotte f Counties
j?
0 25 i m
Mecklenburg County, NC Aliles
"ly
?.n.'"'"""..... .......• ?, ?fw)?it t v? e r i 1r1/f/ '• o y t"
? v;?l '? ll ,•e' y ?' ci I
j fJ t U 00 a 1• t ?: oA y C
d
• ASS.\ll" ? , :..
} fit, C1 t ?\ ? 4....r,.
QJ)
0.4
IN,
/
!(/ }} G.,t ti - `?'"s?w •? •'"1 ?f ,'`?{ ` • t `a 1 v Ste'
f? 1? / ?1) . t` , ??` f't1;ra 1S. .. F. ~ l `w/ J a
Qkk!
\ 're; l ?S r rr"
??: ., '• rya/4??1'uujiugoj• S a'i..', ?i/ _.i ? 1 1 iiri r? r'N?, ._!` v '
' , ''J ? ?.... off ? \.•??, ? ? ?
( a / *4
P8» e ..a. • f ?1\ t , s {?,?^??`?•\ t `l .»/ ? • a . LL P11 u? !!! `,'
???rff , « 7 r'" '\ y f ,.?. ?Gi1\' ,, ,••. `\`• . r ... /' fYt.a?• Ju?aeaR ..
' "?,? ? ? ,k ? 1, ?? \ ° •?
d rir.r: s 46!: s U > Z
)kc
e
- v
01
?`?, ,?;. ?-,? jam. •1 '? ? ? 'o
r_l
_rl
O j?
1$ d
:d Q v' ?. \ i j v ? CJ U U
s L U 7 v v
-IJ
3 ?;s` o 0 0 0 0 0
a ? 3 ro /
"El wey6ug - j'
a it F?
t a?a y s.
a 7 6 A +C- ao+ O ?
'.
?oC t A, v CCi ts
-? ? .i. ? s rya. O ? y
y?.. ? ??q 7? 1 T W ?
It.
o ? r L _ ? ..,• a., v a? v v
y I IL P' it ?y
aj '41
?7 ?Fa ? r? ? .'. UC-.
41
All
' +'- _ tsrt ?. r s -.. 7 :? ..,e? t a7 U? ? ?j • F-1 v u ,,?, ? ? ? ?
C- IY ^ 1•'•.'? ?j?*` tin I O .?? W '?i ?'i ?'?i (? O
R fi ? I
L V j
`ate' - .? y rcl' 6', C
pf _ 4 ? e v a _ °e F?
a
R
z y
d