20190333 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20190312

D1�VR
�irlslan af Water Resources
Initial Review
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
F Yes
C' No
Is this project a public transportation project?"
� Yes r No
Change only rf needed.
BIMS # Assigned *
20190333
Is a payment required for this project?*
f No paymentrequired
� Fee received
F Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office *
Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Walker Branch Greenway — South Tryon Street to Smith Road
1a. Who is the PrimaryContact?*
Brian Bennett
1b. PrimaryContact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
3/12/2019
Nearest Body of Water
Walker Branch
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
Class C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
35.105142
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Mecklenburg
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Is this a NCDOT Project?*
C' Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
,r! Section 404 Permit (w�etlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
Longitude:
-80.983642
Ve rsion# *
1
What amout is owed?*
r $zao.00
G $570.00
Select Project Reviewer"
Donna Hood:eads\drhood
1c. PrimaryContact Phone:*
[phone]
::

�J Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified bythe Corps?
C' Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
14 - Linear transportation
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
�J 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
1e. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
1f. Is this an after-the-fact permit application?"
f Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
C' Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
� Yes r No
Acceptance LetterAttachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
C' Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
l' Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
r' Owner rJ Applicant (other than owner)
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
C' Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Mecklenburg County - Right of Entry Agreements(POC: Brian Bennett, PLA)
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address
Street Address
3205 Freedom Drive
Address Line 2
Suite 101
�Y
Charlotte
Fbstal / Zip Code
28208
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
Brian. Bennett@mecklenbu rgcou ntync. gov
r 401 Water Quality Certification - 6cpress
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
State / Rovince / f�gim
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
*
C' Yes r No
C' Yes r No

3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Brian Bennett
3b. Business Name:
Mecklenburg County
3c.Address
Street Address
3205 Freedom Drive
Address Line 2
Suite 101
�Y
Charlotte
Fbstal / Zip Code
28202
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
Brian. Bennett@mecklenbu rgcou ntync. gov
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(rf appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipalityl town:
Charlotte
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address Line 2
�Y
Postal / Zip Code
3. SurFace Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Walker Branch
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
Class C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
03050103
4. Project Description and History
S[ate / FYwince I Region
NC
Cauntry
USA
3e. Fax Number:
2b. Property size:
SYate l Rovince l f�gion
Country
�,
�
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*

The project area includes a maintained sanitary sewer easement and/or ebsting gravel trail throughout the entirety of the project area. On-site potentially jurisdictional waters drain to
and include Walker Branch. Walker Branch is part of the Low�r Catawba River Basin (HUC 03050103) and is classified as "Class C Waters" by the NCDWR. According to the NCDWR,
Class C Waters are defined as: "Waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance
of biological integrity, and agriculture."
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are t�w potential non-w�tland waters of the US (Streams 1-2) located within the project area (Figure 3).
Stream 1(Walker Branch) originates offsite and drains approxmately 4.5 square miles at the point where the creek exits the project area. Stream 1 flows parallel along the project
corridor and is largely located beyond the corridor limits; ho�ver, approximately 174 linear feet of Stream 1 is present within the project corridor. Stream 1 exhibited evidence of strong
continuity of channel bed and bank, particle size of stream substrate, depositional bars or benches, recent alluvial deposits, and evidence of organic debris lines. Stream characterislics
indicate that continuous flow is present year-round in a typical year. Stream 1 scored a 46 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form.
Stream 2(LIT to Walker Branch) originates offsite and flows approximately 49 linear feet through the project corridor to its confluence with Walker Branch. The channel is currently rip-
rap lined throughout the assessed reach. These impacts are likely a result of the Walker's Creek development wfiich was constructed around 1989. In addition, a small �nrooden
pedestrian bridge is present over Stream 2. Stream 2 exhibits strong continuity of bed and banks and baseflow; however, lacks sinuosity and e�ibits characteristics more commonly
associated with stormwater drainage features. In-stream aquatic organisms were not observed during biological assessments. Stream characteristics indicate that flow is present at least
seasonally in a typical year. Stream 2 scored a 25 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form.
No potential wetland waters of the US are present within the project corridor.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
� Yes r No � Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 7/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Wal kerBranch_F ig2_USGS. pdf
1.07 MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
WalkerBranch_Fig3_Soils.pdf
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
230
3.74MB
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose of this project is to construct an asphalt-paved greenway on new location from the Steele Creek Athletic Association complex, along Walker Branch, to Smith Road.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The project will tie into a developer constructed greenway associated with the Rivergate Shopping Center and includes connections to Rivergate Parkway, the athletic complex and
Walkers Creek Drive in the Walker's Creek neighborhood. Construction of the new greenway is not part of a larger greenway network, nor is a future connection planned. The new
greenway seeks to create/enhance neighborhood connectivity, provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access to the Rivergate Shopping Center, as v�,�ll as provide street access.
The scope of this project includes 3,430 LF (0.65 mile) of new asphalt-paved greenway construction and 2,323 LF (0.44 mile) resurfacing of the existing Rivergate Shopping Center
greenway. The proposed greenway will connect the existing Rivergate greenway with a new location, 12-foot-wide asphalt-paved trail for 0.65 mile along Walker Branch and end at
Smith Road. The project will include a new 75 LF, pre-fabricated, 12-foot-wide bridge crossing over Walker Branch. A 165 LF, 8-foot-wide connection will be built on an ewsting gravel
trail connecting Walker Creek Drive to the new greenway. T�nn overlooks and a small connection to the Steele Creek Athletic Association complex will also be constructed.
Skid steer loaders, excavators, pavers, and other equipment typical of greenway projects will be utilized during construction.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
06_WB_Figures_Complete.pdf 20.8MB
07_Walker Branch Greenway Plans -FINAL.pdf 48.98MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
Sa. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the propertyor proposed impact areas?*
C' Yes
6 No
Comments:
Sb. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
C' Preliminary f Approved C' Not Verified C' Unknown C•' WA
Corps AID Number:
Sc. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Sd1. Jurisdictional determination upload
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
C' Yes r No
C' Unknown
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?

D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
� Wetlands II7 Streams-tributaries
� Open Waters '� Pond Construction
3. Stream Impacts
� 3a. Reason for impact (?)
S1 Rip-rap bridge abutment
along banks
32 Rip-rap outfall
S3 Rip-rap outfall
❑ Rip-rap outfall
SS Rip-rap outfall
S6 Culvert installation/Rip-rap
inlet/outfall
S7 Rip-rap outfall
gg Rip-rap outfall
S9 Rip-rap outfall
cl �n I Rip-rap outfall
type * II3c. Type of impact* II3d. S. name *
Permanent
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
174
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
174
3j. Comments:
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
The overall project includes the construction of an approwmately 0.65-mile long, 12-foot-wide greenway trail, including a 165 LF 8-foot wide
neighborhood connection and a prefabricated pedestrian bridge crossing over Walker Branch.
Installation of rip-rap is necessary to stabilize the stream banks along the abutments of the proposed pedestrian bridge over Walker Branch. Rip-rap
placement will eMend belowthe plane of the ordinary high water mark (OMNM) of Walker Branch. The rip-rap stabilization will result in 25 linear feet of
permanent — no net loss impacts to potential non-wetland waters of the US.
An ewsting v�ooden pedestrian bridge crossing over UT to Walker Branch (S2) will be removed and replaced with 25 LF of a 48-inch reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP). The overall length of the pipe and subsequent stream impacts have been minimized by implementing headwalls at the culvert
inlet and outlet. The culvert has been designed and will be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile will not be altered. The culvert will
be installed below the elevation of the stream bed by 20 % of the culvert diameter to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. 24 LF of inlet and
outlet protections are necessary to meet non-erosive design criteria. Rip-rap outlet dissipation will be placed in a manner that the finished top
elevation of the riprap will not exceed that of the original stream bed in order to prevent de-stabilization of the sheam bed or banks downsheam of the
impact area and to allow for aquatic life passage. 49 linear feet of permanent impacts to potential non-wetland waters of the US is proposed as a result
of the culvert installation and inlet/outlet protections. Note: As described above, Stream 2 has been historically altered by the construction of the
adjacent neighborhood and remains rip-rap lined as a result of that development. The loss of waters results from the 48-inch RCP encapsulation;
howaver, impacts from inlet and outlet protections effectively maintain the existing condition of Stream 2.
As part of the storm drainage netvYnrk, culverts are proposed at eight (8) locations perpendicular to the proposed greenway (Figure 5). Rip-rap outlet
protection is necessary at each culvert in order to meet non-erosive design criteria. Lengths and widths of outlet protection have been minimized to
the greatest eMents practicable. The careful placement of the outfalls will impact Walker Branch belowthe plane of the OHWM but is necessary to
prevent future bank instability and erosion. Rip-rap aprons at each impact location will be installed so that the finished elevation of the rip-rap does not
exceed that of the existing channel bed elevation along Walker Branch (S1). 125 linear feet of permanent — no net loss impacts to potential non-
wetland waters of the US is proposed as a result of the rip-rap outlet protection.
Overall, impacts associated with the construction of the greenway will result in 174 linear feet of permanent impacts to potential non-wetland waters of
the US.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
� Buffers
(�)
Stream Type * 3f. Type of 3g. S. width" 3h. Impact
Jurisdiction * lenath *
Rip Rap Fill Walker Branch Perennial Both 15 11
Averege (feet) Qinear feet)
Rip Rap Fill Walker Branch Perennial Both 15 9
Average (feet) Qinear feet)
Rip Rap Fill Walker Branch Perennial Both 15 25
Average(feet) (linearfeet)
Rip Rap Fill Walker Branch Perennial Both 15 9
Average (feet) (linear feel)
Rip Rap Fill Walker Branch Perennial Both 15 17
Average (feet) Qinear feet)
Rip Rap Fill Walker Branch Perennial Both 15 12
Average (feet) Qinear feet)
Rip Rap Fill Walker Branch Perennial Both 15 17
Average (feet) Qinear feet)
Culvert UT to Walker Branch Intermittent Both 6 49
Average(feet) (linearfeet)
Rip Rap Fill Walker Branch Perennial Both 15 10
Average (feet) Qinear feet)
Rip Rap Fill Walker Branch Perennial Both 15 15
Average (feet) (linear feet)
1. Avoidance and Minimization

1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
The alignment of the Walker Branch Greenway utilizes an existing sanitary sewer and greenway easement and is a single, complete project not part of
a masterplan. The proposed greenway includes one prefabricated pedestrian bridge will be utilized to avoid stream bed impacts along Walker Branch.
1b. Specificallydescribe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
All rip-rap outlet dissipation will be placed in a manner that the finished top elevation of the riprap will not exceed that of the original stream bed in
order to prevent de-stabilization of the stream bed or banks downstream of the impact area and to allow for aquatic life passage. The overall length of
the pipe associated with Impact 6 and subsequent stream impacts have been minimized by implementing headwalls at the culvert inlet and outleL The
culvert has been designed and will be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile will not be altered. The culvert will be installed below
the elevation of the stream bed by 20 % of the culvert diameter to allow lowflow passage of water and aquatic life. Special care and consideration will
be implemented. to the greatest extent practicable, in areas immediately adjacent to the creek in order to prevent incidental fallback.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
f Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Impacts for this project are below the Compensatory Mitigation threshold.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
� Yes r No
If no, explain why:
Project does not include nor is adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
C' Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
G Yes r No
Comments:
I G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federallstate/local) funds or the use of public (federallstate) land?*
r Yes �' No
�
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environme ntal Policy Act (NEPAISEPA)? *
C' Yes r No
Comme nts: *
Greenway linear projects do not require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the NEPA/SEPA.
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
f Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
C' Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Recreational trail will not result in additional development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
f Yes r No � WA

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
C' Yes r No
Sb. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
C' Yes r No
Sd. Is another Federal agency involved?*
C' Yes r No
Se. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
� Yes r No
Sf. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
C' Yes r No
Sg. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
� Yes r No
Sh. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
C' Yes r No
r Unknown
Si. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
� Yes r No
S. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
NCNHP
Consultation Documentation Upload
NCNHP_Wal ker_Bra nch. pdf
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?"
� Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NCNHP
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
1.02 MB
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 status?*
C' Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
HPO Web
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Sa. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
F Yes r No
Sb. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
A flood impact analysis report, no-rise impact certification, and individual floodplain development permit will be submitted to Mecklenburg County for
review and approval prior to construction/restoration activities. The resuRs of the flood impact analysis show that there is no net increase in base flood
elevations.
Sc. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA FIRM PANEL 4409 and 4419
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previouslyrequested.
00_WB_PCN_USACE JD_COMPLETE_NoPlans.pdf
Signature
25.SMB
�
*
fJ By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:

. I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a"transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions AcY');
. I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions AcP');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
. I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Chris Tinklenberg
Signature
�'.�1✓ t�i� . r.6Fkf�'ft'ih�rt�
Date
3/12/2019