20000277 Ver 1_Complete File_20000503

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
November 25, 2002
Project Management Branch
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
i'roitii i_aro'ina Depattin, int of i n, ironincni
and Natural Resources
231 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Dear Ms. Karoly:
a
N* 2 6
Reference our 401 Water Quality Certificate Number 3109 (DWQ Project #000277),
which was issued on May 3, 2000 for the proposed Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration
project, in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to
inform you of our current plans for this project.
Since we completed the NEPA document and obtained the 401 Water Quality Certificate,
our contractor has performed a Rosgin analysis within the project area and determined that
excavation of a "thalweg" within the stream channel would benefit the stream. The excavation
of a thalweg was not discussed within the existing NEPA document. A thalweg is a low flow
channel within the existing Little Sugar Creek stream channel. Excavated material taken from
the thalweg would be immediately placed on high ground. No waters or adjacent wetlands
would be filled as a result of this process. Additionally, no meanders or new stream channels
would be excavated within the adjacent high ground. All work would take place within the
existing stream channel. As indicated in the NEPA document, we will be placing stream
deflector weirs, boulder clusters, j-hook vanes, and cross vanes within the stream channel from
Brandywine Road to Archdale Drive. Also the eroded stream banks will be ripraped (only along
the toe of slope, not full bank) and vegetation will be planted within the stream riparian
easement.
On October 30, 2002, you discussed this matter with Mr. Hugh Heine, of our
Environmental Resources Section, and you indicated that this minor change in the project scope
may be handled as a. modification of our existing 401 Water Quality Certificate. Therefore, we
are formally requesting that your office modify the existing 401 Water Quality Certificate to
reflect this minor clean<ue.
.4

-2-
We appreciate your continued cooperation and look forward to working with you on this
matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at telephone [phone] or Mr. Heine
at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
-eg" U - 16",*
Robert W. Keistler
Project Manager
i%
V
Cx
PVI-
G?

// 41
t
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Dan Small
Planning Services Section
LIThMA,
,&4?j 2
A Now
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 3, 2000
Meklenburg County
DWQ Project # 000277
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
US Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 18900
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Small:
You have our approval. in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill material in 1.0acres of
waters for the purpose of Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration in the City Charlotte as described in your application dated February
16, 2000 with an EA/FONSI dated January 2000. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3109. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 27 when the Corps of
Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including
(but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Water shed regulations. This
approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as modified below. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold. the new owner
must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. This project may not be used for compensatory stream mitigation for other 401 Certifications unless a) DWQ's stream mitigation
policy changes and b) monitoring is conducted which demonstrates the biological benefit of this work If compensatory mitigation
"credits" are sought, additional written approval is required from DWQ.
2. Rotenone shall not be used for fish collections.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60
days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any
questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
cc y
T. teven
Attachment
cc: Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
File copy
Central Files
Ron Linville; WRC
Division of Water (duality • Non-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27669-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer •
50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
John,
I've looked this over (and had Eric look at it as well). I would recommend that we go
ahead with the 401, but I do have some additional comments.
-There appears to be a discrepancy between our definition of what constitutes
restoration and the definition within Section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act (PL 99-662). Do you know what this Act is? This project does
not meet our definition of restoration and should not be given mitigation credits.
-Need to note somewhere that they should not use Rotenone for fish collections.
-The major concern DWQ (and other groups) had with this project is that other
water quality issues including stormwater runoff will override any improvements
in habitat that will be done in this project. They note that this is "beyond the
scope of this project", although in my opinion this needs to be considered as part
of projects like this.
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Michael L Parker
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: Rex Gleason
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration : COE and County Mecklenburg
Project Number 00 0277
Recvd From COE
Received Date 311100 Recvd By Region
Project Type stream restoration
Certificates
Permit Wetland Wetland
Type Type Impact
Stream
Wetland Stream Class
Score Index Prim. Supp.
County2
Region Mooresville
Stream Impacts (ft.)
Acres Feet
Basin Req. Req.
27 Stream O YO N F__ 11-137-8 F _c_F__30,834. 1.00 16,896.00 16,896. I - I
r r r
F_F__PY ON I F_
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? Q Y 0 N Did you request more info? Q Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y O N
Is Mitigation required? Q Y (0 N
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 350925
Comments:
Longitude (ddmmss) 805107
Application has been made to restore ap ro,000 linear feet of aquatic habitat along Little Sugar
Greek (LSQ) in Meck. County. This activity is necessary due to degradation and channelization,
which occurred on this section of LSG as a result of a ALOE flood control eject in the late 70s'.
The restoration will include fishery enhancement structures, riparian stabilization improvements,
wetland creation, and the removal of existing unnecessary structures located in and near the stream
channel. These improvements are designed to improve the abundance and diversily of fish and
benthic organisms, slow the loss of riparian habitat, reduce in-stream sedimentation, reduce bank
failures, and improve the overall appearance of the stream. The applicant plans to utilize
bioengineering techniques throughout the eject with rip only used in those areas that
necessitate substantial bank hardening such as utility line crossings and acent to bridges- Some
rip ran will be used at slope toes where necessary.
Recommendation: QQ Issue O Issue/Coed O Deny
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Facility Name Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration : COE and County Mecklenburg
Project Number 00 0277 Regional Contact: Michael L Parker
Date: 5/10/2000
Comments (continued from page 1):
Overall benefits of this project greatly out weigh the short term im acpected during construction.
Also, a comprehensive montoring.pIan, that includes the ability . provide additional measures where
initial measures may have been unsucessful or did not meet their intended goals will be paramount in
the sucess of this poject, Although the application did not discuss the possibility, reestablishment of
channel sinuosity re possihle) should also be considered. It is understood that the vast maiori
of I SNs flood plain is developed, however, there may be some areas that allow sinuosity
reestablishment- greatly adding to the expected viability of the project. Overall, this is an excellent
onportunity'provide aquatic and WO benefits to a stream that has been documented through WO
data as one of the more impaired stream in this region.
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 2
00027T
US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Wilmington District
Environmental Assessment
and
Finding Of No Significant Impact
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK HABITAT
RESTORATION
City of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

January 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington.
ABSTRACT: Little Sugar Creek has its headwaters within the city of Charlotte, North Carolina.
Its watershed is highly urbanized, and the large amount of impervious surface, non-point runoff,
and construction activity has led to severe degradation of the stream and its associated natural
communities. In 1978, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a flood control project on
the creek between its confluence with Briar Creek downstream to Archdale Road. This project
consisted of constructing a trapezoidal channel, designed to promote rapid passage of floodflows
through improved hydrologic efficiency of the stream channel. When that project was
constructed, it included no environmental features and thus contributed to the further decline of
the aquatic resource values of the stream. The proposed habitat restoration project would restore
many of the habitat values, which were eliminated by the flood control project. This would be
one by placemenr .of fishery enhancement-structures in the area of the flood control project and
streambank stabilization from the upstream limit of the flood control project to Brandywwneoad
an on n Bear Creek upstream to Park Road. The project calls for placementoEf isIF6i J M'
enhancement structures in seven areas of Little Sugar Creek and riparian tree plantings.
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER AT THE ADDRESS BELOW.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
Attention: Mr. Hugh Heine
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
For further information concerning this Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact, please contact: Mr. Hugh Heine, Environmental Resources Section, at the
address below, by telephone at (910) 251-40708, or by e-mail at
[e-mail].
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S B iFCT PAGE NO.
1.00 Introduction ....................................................................................................EA-1
1.01 Description and Background of the Project Area .............................EA-1
1.02 Purpose and Need .............................................................................EA-1
2.00 Authorization and Description of the Proposed Action ...................................EA-2
3.00 Incorporation by Reference .............................................................................EA-3
4.00 Public and Agency Coordination .....................................................................EA-3
5.00 Comments Received .............................................. ..............................EA-4
6.00 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................EA-10
7.00 Compliance with Environmental Requirements ............................................ EA-11
8.00 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................EA-12
9.00 Environmental Commitments ........................................................................EA-12
10.00 Finding Of No Significant Impact .................................................................EA-13
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1 Habitat Restoration Project
Follows page EA-13
LIST OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1 - Pertinent Correspondence........
.............................................. EA-Al

EA-ii
Environmental Assessment and
Finding Of No Significant Impact
Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration
City Of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
1.00 Introduction
1.01 Description and Background of the Project Area
The Little Sugar Creek (Figure 1) watershed is highly urbanized and has its headwaters within
the city of Charlotte, North Carolina. The large amount of impervious surface, non-point runoff,
and construction activity has led to severe degradation of the stream and it associated natural
communities. In 1978, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, constructed a
flood control project on the creek between its confluence with Briar Creek downstream to
Archdale Road. This project consisted of constructing a trapezoidal channel, designed to
promote rapid passage of flood flows through improved hydrologic efficiency of the stream
channel. When that project was constructed, it included no environmental features and thus
contributed to the further decline of the aquatic resource values of the stream.
The aquatic habitat and stream banks of Little Sugar Creek and Briar Creek upstream of the
Corps flood control project are in a state of disequilibrium caused by changes in hydrology
resulting from the large quantity of impervious surface that now exists in these watersheds.
Runoff into the creek now occurs much more quickly than would occur in a largely forested
watershed, and the water levels in the creeks respond by quickly rising and falling with each
storm event. This increased frequency of erosive flow conditions is causing the streambanks to
fail at many locations. With each bank failure, sediment is introduced to the stream, which
further degrades the aquatic environment.
The Corps has been involved with studying flood problems in Charlotte for many years. Most
recently, the Corps studied Little Sugar Creek, along with Sugar Creek, Briar Creek, Irwin Creek,
McMullen Creek, and McAlpine Creek, issued a Reevaluation Report in 1991. The planning
which occurred involved many agencies and has provided a clear picture of the resource base that
is present within the current study area. Pertinent information from that effort was used in the
preparation of this report.
1.02 Purpose and Need
The proposed action, discussed in this report, would restore many of the habitat values which
have been eliminated by the Federal flood control project through placement of fishery
enhancement structures in the area of the flood control project and streambank stabilization on
Little Sugar Creek upstream to Brandywine Road and on Briar Creek upstream to Park Road.
The project calls for placement of fishery enhancement structures in seven areas of Little Sugar
Creek and riparian tree plantings.
EA-1
2.00 Authorization and Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is being undertaken under the authority of Section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, PL 99-662, as amended. This legislation provides
authority to make modifications in the structures and operations of water resources projects
constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the quality of the environment.
The proposed action consists of two items of work: placement of fishery enhancement structures
in the area of the flood control project and streambank stabilization on Little Sugar Creek
upstream to Brandywine Road and on Briar Creek upstream to Park Road. In the flood control
project area, this alternative consists of placement of fishery enhancement structures in seven
areas of Little Sugar Creek and riparian tree plantings. Fish structures will be rock vanes
projecting into the stream.at..aza _upstream angle of-24-degrees, placed_ ether staggered or directly
conjunction other to diversify flows through deflection or creation of scoured areas. These will
0beP used in in each
twith boulder clusters, which will be bedded either on footer boulders or
concrete slabs. Siting criteria were established with the objective of evenly distributing
enhancement features (habitat diversity) over the length of the project and promoting mixing in
the water column. Since the project reach is fairly uniform, ultimate site selection was made
based on tributary stream locations, the water treatment plant discharge location, locations of
bends in the stream, and spacing between structures. Locations and types of structures being
proposed can be seen in the Environmental Restoration Report (ERR).
Trees will be planted along the top of the channel between the travelway and channel side slope
to provide stream shading and aesthetic enhancement. Exact species and varieties of trees to be
planted will depend on availability and will be finalized during Plans and Specifications. In the
portion of the project between Archdale Road and the wastewater treatment plant, only trees
which are small at maturity such as dogwoods can be used due to the presence of overhead power
lines. Upstream of the wastewater treatment plant, there are no vertical restrictions and large tree
species such as oaks, maples, and sycamores can be used. Species that produce either soft or
hard mast will be preferred throughout the project area.
Upstream bank stabilization would be performed on eroding sites upstream on Little Sugar Creek
to Brandywine Road and on Briar Creek upstream to Park Road. No work will be performed on
Briar Creek above Park Road as Mecklenburg County already has a streambank stabilization
project underway in that area. Upstream bank stabilization criteria, i.e., types of upstream
stabilization, locational alternatives, and design criteria, can be found in the ERR. In water
portions of bank stabilization features will also provide a diversification of fish habitat in the
upstream area. While this benefit is not being sought as a project purpose, the benefits can be
substantial.
Right-of-way limits for the proposed action will generally extend 25 feet beyond the existing top
of bank or slope intercept point in graded areas for the working bank and 10 feet on the non-
working bank. Right-of-way will be used for project construction and maintenance access and
for any landscaping measures. The working bank will be the primary bank for construction and
access to the stream. The working bank will.be cleared where necessary for construction access
EA-2
and once all construction is completed will be replanted. This calculates to be approximately
34.7 acres of perpetual easement needed for the proposed action. The temporary work area
easement will be an additional 15 feet in width in various areas of the project. There are
approximately 1.7 acres of temporary work area easement; this area includes the three proposed
staging areas that will be located along the project area. Access for construction is limited to
areas near existing public roads. It is the responsibility of Mecklenburg County (the non-Federal
project sponsor) to acquire the necessary real estate interest for the project as well as any
maintenance needed in the future. All real estate will be acquired by project sponsor through
temporary and perpetual channel improvement easements.
The proposed action will improve the abundance and diversity of fishes and benthic organisms,
slow the loss of valuable riparian habitat, reduce in-stream sedimentation, and improve the
appearance of the creek. The proposed Section 1135 project extends about 2.2 miles along Little
Sugar Creek from Archdale Drive upstream to Brandywine Road. A short reach of Briar Creek
extending from its confluence with Little Sugar Creek to a point 1,010 feet upstream is also
included in the project.
The Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection monitors species diversity
and abundance of fishes and benthos in most of the county's streams. The Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) will coordinate with this agency to have
monitoring of fish and benthic organism populations in the stream before construction and for
3 years following completion of the project. Results of this monitoring will be provided to all
concerned agencies.
3.00 Incorporation by Reference
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Environmental Assessment, Little Sugar
Creek Habitat Restoration Mecklenburg County North Carolina. April 1999.
4.00 Public and Agency Coordination
On May 13, 1999, the environmental assessment (EA) referenced previously, was mailed to
Federal and State agencies and the interested public for a 30-day review and comment period.
The list of recipients is provided in the above-referenced EA. Comments were received from the
following agencies:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region IV
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
North Carolina Department of Administration
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDNR?
-Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc.
EA-3
5.0 Comments Received
All comments received on the EA were considered in making the decision to sign the Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI). Pertinent comments from each reviewer are summarized and
addressed below. Copies of the letters received are included in Appendix 1. In many instances,
our response to a comment is indicated as "noted". Noted means that the comment was evaluated
and was considered before making the decision to sign the FONSI.
In order to reduce repetition, responses are made once to a comment and a particular issue. If the
issue appears again, in another letter or in the same letter, the reader is referred to the initial
comment. Detailed responses are not given to comments which repeat information found in the
Environmental Restoration Report (ERR).
5.01 USEPA, Region IV; letter dated June 1 1999.
Comment: In the absence of some means to control or at least meter the storm water
impulses and entrained sediments entering the creek from the surrounding watershed, the long-
term effectiveness of the proposed fisheries enhancement structures and boulder clusters may be
less than anticipated. It has been our experience that the present toe of slope erosion will
continue at some greater or lesser degree rendering these measures less and less functional as
they become covered. To lessen this possibility, we suggest that when/where ever possible
upslope measures (retention basins, grassed swales, and other "best management practices") be
combined with the in-stream structures. This will have the attendant benefit of improving water
quality parameters which should further improve the present diminished fisheries' production.
Response: We recognize the importance of controlling the amount of stormwater and
sediment entering the Little Sugar Creek/Briar Creek watershed. However, it is beyond the scope
of this project to meter storm water throughout the Little Sugar Creek basin. As indicated in the
ER " to -p revein tfie restored habitat from being buried or seriously comprised by sedimentation,
sediment reduction features are included upstream. These consist of two sediment basins in the
channel bed upstream of Tyvola Road and localized bank stabilization upstream to Brandywine
Road.
Additionally, stormwater and sediment runoff within the Little Sugar Creek drainage area are
also regulated by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR) and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Before any upland development takes place, a
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan from NCDLR and a stormwater management permit
from NCDWQ must be obtained.
5.02 NMFS; letter dated May 24, 1999.
Comment: We have reviewed the subject report and have determined that this work
will have no impact on National Marine Fisheries Service trust resources. Therefore, we will
offer no comment or recommendations on this report.
Response: Noted.
EA-4
5.03 USFWS, letter dated my 6, 1999.
Comment: We are pleased that the Corps has undertaken this project under Section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, PL 99-662, as amended. We support
the proposed project, as it will result in a net increase in the quantity and quality of aquatic and
riparian habitat in the project vicinity. The level of detail provided in the draft report and the EA
appear appropriate and we note that the proposal includes regular monitoring following
construction. We look forward to receiving periodic reports of these findings. In general, we
agree with selection of the restoration plan for habitat restoration, however, we recommend some
specific features be included to maximize the benefits to fish and wildlife resources.
Response: Noted.
Comment: We are concerned about vegetative management along the project length, as
it impacts wildlife and soil stability. We recommend that riparian vegetation include native
woody species, such as alder (Alnus spp.) silky dogwood, black and silky willow, sedges,
grasses, and rushes. Planting large woody species will provide thermal cover as well as deep
bank-stabilizing root systems along the stream channel and we recommend river birch, and
various oaks. Further, we encourage the local sponsor to pursue easements and/or fee title
control over as much of the riparian area as possible. We are concerned about the potential
negative effects of landowners retention of and exercise of vegetation management within the
riparian zone along the project.
Response: Plate P-4, found in Appendix C of the ERR, provides a preliminary list of
vegetation to be planted within the riparian zone. Exact species and varieties of trees to be
planted will depend on availability and will be finalized during Plans and Specifications.
However, native species will be preferred and used if possible. As indicated in section 2.00,
Authorization and Description of the Proposed Action, and in the real estate plan found in
Appendix A of the ERR, all real estate will be acquired by the project sponsor through temporary
channel improvement easements and perpetual channel improvement easements. A detailed
description of the proposed actions right-of-way requirements is found in section 2.00,
Authorization and Description of the Proposed Action.
Comment: We are also quite concerned about the potential impacts of chemical,
thermal, and sediment pollution of stormwater run-off from the residential and commercial
development in the watershed which might reduce the potential recovery of water quality as an
important feature of aquatic habitat. Therefore, we recommend that the local sponsor retrofit
stormwater channels with energy dissipaters and grease/oil separators. Stormwater-borne
pollutants may be the most limiting factor in the ultimate success of this project.
Response: We share your concern about stormwater runoff, but basinwide
modification to stormwater flows is beyond the scope of this project. Please see response to
USEPA, above.
EA-5
Comment: The restoration plan relies heavily on the installation of riprap and other
structural additions to the stream. There may be no realistic alternatives to this engineering
approach, however, various less structural alternatives should be considered which would allow
the stream to come into a more natural equilibrium of flooding, sedimentation, and ecological
balance without such extensive use of riprap.
Response: We share your concerns. That is why we are looking at the less obtrusive
soils bioengineering techniques for bank stabilization. Where the 2-year flood stream velocities
are less than 4 feet per second, coconut fiber roll will be used for toe protection and erosion
control fabric will be placed on the existing slopes. A complete description of
stabilization/restoration improvements (which include the soils bioengineering techniques) are
fully described in tables 4, 6, and 7 found in Section W - Plan Formulation in the ERR.
Comment: With regards to instream devices (rock weir deflectors) described in the
/ restoration plan, we recommend that a modified vane structure, the j-hook rock vanes are proving
to provide the most aquatic habitat diversity, as well as reducing stream current velocities in the
near bank region. Another suggestion is to include root wads along the outside bends, thereby
providing bank protection and aquatic habitat. We also recommend that some woody debris
(logs, root wads, fascines) be anchored along banks to provide a source of carbon and serve as
habitat for benthic organisms until the planted riparian vegetation matures and serves these
natural functions.
Response: We will modify our restoration plan to replace rock vanes with j-hook rock
vanes or other appropriate rock vane designs during detailed project planning. Additional
information is found in our response to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), below. As indicated in Section IV- Plan Formulation in the ERR, root wads and
anchoring woody debris along the stream banks would not be an effective means to provide
aquatic habitat for aquatic organisms since the 2-year design flood stream velocities are too great.
Little Sugar Creek experiences quick response to storm water runoff, which translates to rapid
increases in stream flows. Bank erosion would cause undermining of the anchor and the eventual
loss of the structure. Table 1 in the ERR provides a summary of the estimated of peak flood
flows developed in the modeling study by Ogden Environmental and Engineering Services, Inc.
Comment: We recommend that the project include fish stocking after the habitat
improvements have stabilized and water quality has improved.
Response: We disagree. The purpose of the Section 1135 proposed action is to
improve the abundance and diversity of fishes and benthic organisms, not to provide a
recreational fishery resource to the project area. Once habitat is improved, fish populations
should naturally increase to the newly established carrying capacity.
Comment: The Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed records and visited the site and
concurs with your determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect
federally-listed threatened and endangered species. Therefore, we believe the requirements under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, are fulfilled.
Response: Noted.
EA-6
Comment: The restoration team should consider and evaluate approaches found in the
publication, "Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices," issued October
1998. The Army Corps of Engineers had representatives serving on this team.
Response: We agree. We have used some of the recommendations found in this
publication in developing the proposed action.
5.04 North Carolina Department of Administration NC State Clearinghouse,
letter dated June 21, 1999. (Transmitting the following intergovernmental review comments
and recommendations.)
NCDENR; memorandum to Ms. Chrys Baggatt, NC State Clearinghouse dated
June 23, 1999, which transmitted the following NCDENR Division to the State Clearinghouse.
010 :.fc
NCDWO; memorandum dated Tune 11, 1999.
J.
t'? l
Comment: NCDWQ does not believe that this pro' t qualifies as a stream restoration
project, but should be described as a streaynhancemen abiliz4tion project.
Response: We disagree. Under Section 11 5 cosystem restoration plans are re?,J .
linked to modifications of an existing Federal project, in this case the Federal channel a?
1 0 rx ' " improvement that widened the stream channel from Archdale Drive upstream to the Briar Creek &ed lt,
C t confluence and the associated project easements. The proposed 1135 project is a restoration of c?-,??
the aquatic habitat in the project area, not an enhancement/stabilization project. J
Comment: What is the Rosgen Classification of the Little Sugar Creek in the project
area. Please provide additional information supporting the selection and use of single and double
wing deflectors for insiream habitat enhancement.
Response: The Rosgen Classification of the Little Sugar Creek in the project area is a
"sandy gully" G5 Stream Type. Additional information supporting the proposed action are found
in Sections H - Problem Identification and IV Plan Formulation in the ERR.
Comment: Serious consideration should be spent on studying the applicability of tree
revetments (or root wads) in all or some areas in lieu of rock stabilization.
Response: We agree. Please see our response to USFWS, above.
Comment: There are numerous single and double wing deflectors planned for this
project. Are there any additional stabiiization features to be installed up/downstream of these
features on the bank to prevent additional erosion or are the areas on the banks that are to receive
these structures stable already?
Response: As indicated in Section IV - Plan Formulation in the ERR, where the single
and double wing deflectors are to be installed within the stream channel, the adjacent stream
EA-7
banks would require either full slope protection (particularly at street crossings and storm drain
outfalls) or vegetative-based erosion control measures in the upper part of the channel bank
sections that are subject to less frequent flooding.
Comment: This project was designed for the 2-year flood event. Along reaches where
the stream velocity was 4 to 5 feet per second, the stone protection will be placed to a distance of
about 6 feet above the stream bottom or to the elevation which is just above the normal stream
flow. The backfill bench is significantly less than 6 feet above the stream bottom and therefore 7
rip rap/gabions should be restricted below this geomorphic feature. Again the use of tree ??
revetments may be a superior alternative to rock riprap. /
Response: In Section H of the ERR, Odgen Environmental and Engineering Services,
Inc. accomplished the Little Sugar Creek watershed-modeling project using the HEC-2 and was
completed under contract to the City of Charlotte. Output from the HEC-2 analysis included
water surface profiles, depth of flow, and channel velocities along various reaches within the
study limits for six flood frequencies. The HEC-2 model indicated that the elevation of the
normal stream flow during the 2-year design flood is about 6 feet above the stream bottom. We
understand that normal stream flow in Little Sugar Creek is less than 6 feet above the stream
bottom, but the 2-year design flood was used for determining the extent and limits of the toe
protection necessary in the project area. Please review our earlier response to the tree revetments
("root wads").
Comment: Live stakes are often effective when placed within full bank riprap. Similar
techniques have proved effective on sections of McAlpine Creek.
Response: We agree. Planting woody vegetation within the full bank riprap will be
included within the final planting plan.
Comment: In areas for full bank stabilization, supporting photographic documentation
should be submitted for review.
Response: We will provide your office with the requested photographic
documentation.
Comment: Consideration should be given to planting additional vegetation in those
areas where there is extensive tree cover.
Response: We agree. We will look into the possibility of planting shade tolerant
vegetation in those areas that have extensive tree cover.
Comment: Please provide details of the proposed biological/physical monitoring by
Mecklenburg County.
Response: After the project has been completed, the Mecklenburg County Department
of Environmental Protection will monitor the project area for species diversity and abundance of
EA-8
fishes and benthos. Each sampling point would provide the to pling effort, collecting
method (i.e., electrofishing, seining, netting, trawling, trapping, tenon , or other), name of
collector, permit number, and list of fishes (i.e., name (common an scientific)), total number,
and total weight. In addition, each sampling point would provide a description of the
macroinvertebebrates found in the sediment.
Comment: Please provide detailed plans for the proposed construction of and location
of "S", "V", or "W" shaped boulder dams and lunker boxes within the stream channel.
Response: We will provide your office with detailed plans and specifications for these
in stream structures.
Comment: Why are the stream deflector weirs not placed within more areas of the
project area? Are these structures confined only on outside meanders or only in the run areas?
Response: Because of the low stream gradient in the project area, use of low head weir
structures that provide pool habitat, must be limited. There is only an elevational difference of
about 2 feet between downstream and upstream ends of the project; therefore, if more than two
weirs are used, the entire project would be converted to pool habitat. As indicated on page 6,
Section IV - Plan Formulation, one type of habitat should not be created at the expense of
another. In order to function properly and maximize habitat potential, the rock vanes will be
moved to the outside of meanders.
Comment: All deflectors are depicted with riprap armor. Tree revetments should also
be examined.
Response: Please review our earlier response to tree revetments.
Comment: Plate P-3 depicts the stream deflector oriented in the wrong direction in
relation to stream flow.
Response: Thank you for pointing that out. We have corrected plate P-3.
NCWRC, memorandum dated June 8, 1999.
Comment: We are pleased that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has developed a
plan to restore degraded fish habitat and stabilized banks along Little Sugar Creek and Briar
Creek. However, we are concerned with the placement and design with the fish habitat structures
shown in the plan. Based on review of the plan view, Plates 4 through 11, we feel that several of
the fish habitat structures need to be moved or modified. Several of the rock vanes should be
moved from the inside to the outside of the meanders. Rock vanes should be modified as J-Hook
vanes. Also opposite rock vanes should be modified as cross rock vanes.
Response: We agree. We will modify our plans to reflect your recommendations
during detailed design of the project.
EA-9
Comment: Concerning construction of rock vanes/cross vanes, detailed plans show
class 1 riprap and geotextile matting as the construction materials. Rock vanes/cross vanes
should be constructed of large boulders that average 1 cubic yard in size. These boulders should
be placed on footer boulders of similar or larger size that are buried into the stream bottom
instead of being bedded on gravel filters. Instead of footer rocks, concrete slabs can be used. If
the stream substrate is sand, then the rock structures will need to be back filled with large
gravel/cobble materials or class A or B riprap. Boulder cluster rocks should also be set on large
footer rocks.
Response: We have modified our plans to reflect your recommendations.
Comment: The plan shows two large, instream sediment basins at the confluence of
Little Sugar and Briar Creeks. We do not favor the installation of instream sediment basins since
construction and removal of these structures can cause more damage to the stream environment
than they protect. We prefer that sedimentation generated during construction be allowed to
freely move through the system. The two instream check dams need to be removed.
Response: We understand your concerns but as a condition of the Sedimentation
Erosion Control Plan, the North Carolina Division of Land Resources requires that these
instream check dams and sediment basins be constructed.
Comment: We are willing to meet with the project sponsors to conduct a site visit and
discuss these recommendations prior to finalization of the EA and construction design plans.
Once the final EA is prepared, it should be submitted for agency review and approval.
Response: We have agreed to meet onsite to discuss your recommendations and your
agency will be provided with a copy of the FONSI.
5.05 Mid-South Consulting Engineers. Inc.; letter dated June 25 1999.
Comment: After reviewing your plans for habitat restoration of Little Sugar Creek in
Charlotte, North Carolina, we have concluded that our present facilities near the Archdale Drive
area do not interfere with your proposed changes.
Response: Noted.
6.0 Threatened and Endangered Species
The EA includes a determination that the proposed Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration project
will not adversely affect or threaten the continued existence of threatened and endangered species
and is in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The
EA was provided to USFWS on May 13, 1999. By letter dated July 6, 1999 (see Appendix 1),
the USFWS concurred with our determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely
affect federally-listed endangered and threatened species within the jurisdiction of the USFWS.
EA-10
7.00 Compliance with Environmental Requirements
7.01 Water Quality. A Section 404 (b)(1) evaluation was completed and is found in
the referenced EA. A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate under the Clean Water Act of 1977
(Public Law 92-532), as amended, will be applied for and will be obtained before the
commencement of work.
7.02 Air Quality. The project is in compliance with Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (CAA). Air quality in Charlotte is designated as an attainment area (Ms. Joan
Liu, Mecklenburg Dept. Env. Protection, Personal communication, 7 January 1999). The direct
and indirect emissions from the project fall below the prescribed de minimus levels; therefore,
this project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment
area.
7.03 Threatened and Endangered Species. The proposed habitat restoration project is
not likely to adversely affect any species pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
7.04 Cultural Resources. No impacts to known archaeological or historic resources
are anticipated from the proposed action.
7.05 Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management). The project would also
occur in an area defined as a flood plain. All practicable steps have been taken to ensure
compliance to the maximum extent practicable as required by the Order. There are no options
available for restoring aquatic habitat and stabilizing streambank sites which do not involve
construction in the flood plain. By limiting the size of restoration features, no increases in flood
stages are anticipated.
7.06 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). The project will unavoidably
impact stream bottoms and riparian areas which would defined as wetlands under Executive
Order 11990; however, no net loss of wetlands is anticipated as a result of the project.
7.07 Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment). The proposed plan has been evaluated under Executive Order 11593, and it is
not an undertaking affecting potential National Register sites.
7.08 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and Low Income Populations). The
proposed action would not adversely affect any minority communities or low income
populations. All work will be confined to the stream channels and immediately adjacent stream
banks. Existing flooding problems in the watershed will not be aggravated by any of the
proposed work.
7.09 Executive Order 13405 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks). This Executive Order mandates Federal agencies identify and assess environmental
EA-1 1
health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children as a result of the
implementation of Federal policies, programs, activities, and standards. The proposed fish
habitat restoration and upstream bank stabilization will not impact schools or other known
gathering places for children. However, much of the project will occur in residential and
commercial areas, and children may visit the creeks in these settings. Correcting steep-sided,
eroding creek banks and removing urban trash and debris from the construction sites should
improve the overall safety of the creek for children.
8.00 Environmental Impacts
No unacceptable adverse effects on water resources (surface and groundwater), aquatic resources,
terrestrial resources, wetlands and flood plains, threatened and endangered species, cultural
resources, aesthetic and recreational resources, and socioeconomic resources are expected to
occur as a result of the proposed action. The majority of the comments received during the
coordination of the Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration project indicate that the document
adequately addresses the resources in the project area and the potential project-related impacts to
those resources.
9.00 Environmental Commitments
The following commitments must be fulfilled:
1. For any land disturbance one acre or larger, a Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Plan must be approved by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources.
2. Before any work is initiated at Little Sugar Creek, the required 401 Water Quality
Certificate from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and a stormwater management ____
permit from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality must be obtained.
3. The Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection monitors species
diversity and abundance of fishes and benthos in most of the county's stream. The Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) will coordinate with this agency to have
monitoring of fish and benthic organism populations in the stream before construction and for
3 years following completion of the project. Results of this monitoring will be provided to all
concerned agencies.
EA-12
10.00 Finding of No Significant Impact
No unacceptable adverse effects on water and aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, wetlands
and flood plains, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, recreational resources,
recreational fishing, or socioeconomic resources are expected to occur as a result of the proposed
Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration project. Based on the EA referenced previously, the
recommended plan will not significantly affect the quality of human environment; therefore, this
action will not be subject of an environmental impact statement.
- D C-)
Date: -T
James W. Delony
Colonel, U. S. Arm
District Engineer
EA-13
J
l
r?

o >'
^ uj
- W
Jig ?y
7 J
Z CL
N

"'I
s
g 'c / J as cb -
o? U°? 3? 5 Y «« W
gc` +Y 3 c i vl
\I ' ? m
r1 z
=1 ?? a
Y? co
? W
N
44 JV a
«3 ? ? = 4? ? aN a
a ~Y'^Re 2
r
r
YES
.? • ASS
S ?
4
J
Y
a
^^ R
y.M i V7
.? o « W
- ` >
Z
j J
?- W
APPENDIX I
Pertinent Correspondence
Letters Received During the 30-Day Review and Comment Period
EA-Al
? 4% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
vt vr? ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Mr. W. Coleman Long
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Attn: Mr. William Adams - Environmental Resources Branch
Subject: Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration, City of
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Long:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA, Region 4
has reviewed the subject restoration plan which will essentially
take place along a 2.2 mile reach of the Creek from Archdale
Drive upstream to Brandywine Road. In-creek improvements involve
emplacement of boulder clusters and stream deflector weirs in an
attempt to improve degraded aquatic habitat. Upslope vegetative
plantings will be installed at non-critical points (other than
street crossings and storm drain outfalls) to lessen sediment
impacts to the restored habitat.
The stated objectives of improving habitat diversity and
fisheries are laudable from an environmental perspective.
However, in the absence of some means to control or at least
meter the storm water pulses and entrained sediments entering the
creek from the surrounding watershed, the long-term effectiveness
of the proposed fisheries enhancement structures and boulder
clusters may be less than anticipated. It has been our
experience that the present toe of slope erosion will continue at
some greater or lesser degree rendering these measures less and
less functional as they become covered. To lessen this
possibility, we suggest that when/where ever possible upslope
measures (retention basins, grassed swales, and other "best
management practices") be combined with the in-stream structures.
This will have the attendant benefit of improving water quality
parameters which should further improve the present diminished
fisheries, production.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If we can be of
further assistance, Dr. Gerald Miller (404-562-9626) will serve
as initial point of contact.
Sincerely yours,
! 1 i ? .U.l l,? ?
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Office of Environmental Assessment
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.apa.gov
Recycled(Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
rya orb
'',vn a
Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention William Adams
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive N
St. Petersburg, Florida 3370
May 24, 1999
Please reference your May 13, 1999, request for comments on the Draft Environmental Restoration
Report and Environmental Assessment for Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration, City of Charlotte,
Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, dated April 1999. We have reviewed the subject report and
have determined that this work will have no impact on National Marine Fisheries Service trust
resources. Therefore, we will offer no comment or recommendations on this report.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC
NCDENR, Morehead City, NC
F/SER4
Sincerely,
Andras Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional A inistrator
Habitat Conservation Division
? i

ER 99/463
W. Coleman Long, Chief
Technical Services Division
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Long:
MAY 2 6 1999
Q?Q?•Qfl . .
-r-5 - PS
Al .8j s rks v'S I
This is in regard to the request for the Department of the
Interior's comments on the Draft Environmental Restoration Report
and Environmental Assessment for the Little Sugar Creek Habitat
Restoration, City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina.
This is to inform you that the Department will have comments, but
will be unable to reply within the allotted time as we have just
received your transmittal of sufficient copies to satisfy our
intradepartmental needs. Please consider this letter as a
request for an extension of time in which to comment.
Our comments should be available by July 13, 1999.
Sincerely,
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Washington, D.C. 20240
-77? b,,,, t- 64. -
Terence N. Martin
Team Leader, Natural Resources
Management
Office of Environmental Policy
and Compliance
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
July 6, 1999
ER-99/463
District Engineer,
U. S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: William Adams, Environmental Resource Section
Dear Sir:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Restoration Report and Environmental Assessment for the Little
Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC,
as requested.
We are pleased that the Corps has undertaken this project under
Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, PL 99-
662, as amended. We support the proposed project, as it will
result in a net increase in the quantity and quality of aquatic and
riparian habitat in 'the project vicinity. The level of detail
provided with the draft report and EA appear appropriate and we
note that the proposal includes regular monitoring following
construction. We look forward to receiving periodic reports of
these findings. In general, we agree with selection of the
restorati:.n plan for habitat restoration, however, we re=-.Vnend
some specific features be included to maximize the benefits to fish
and wildlife resources.
We are concerned about vegetative management along the project
length, as it impacts wildlife and soil stability. We recommend
that riparian vegetation include native woody species, such as
alder (Alnus spp.), silky dogwood, black and silky willow, sedges,
grasses, and rushes. Exotic vegetation should be screened from any
plant material. We agree that planting large woody species will
provide thermal cover as well as deep bank-stabilizing root systems
along the stream channel, and we recommend river birch (Betula
nigra), and various oaks (Quercus spp.), such as overcup oak,
swamp chestnut oak, and pin oak. Further, we encourage the local
sponsor to aggressively pursue easements and/or fee title control
over as much of the riparian area of the.project as possible. We
are concerned about the potential negative effects of landowners
retention of and exercise of vegetation management within the
riparian zone along the project. We recommend inclusion of
vegetative management control by the project sponsor or the Corps
to avoid potential destabilization of streambanks and reversal of
project benefits if landowners are allowed to mow or otherwise
limit extent of streambank vegetation, especially those deep-rooted
woody species.
We are also quite concerned about the potential impacts of
chemical, thermal, and sediment pollution of stormwater run-off
from the residential and commercial development in the watershed
which might reduce the potential recovery of water quality as an
important feature of aT-Iatic habitat. Therefore,.we recom-mend. that
the local sponsor retrofit stormwater channels with energy
dissipaters and grease/oil separators. Stormwater-borne pollutants
may be the most limiting factor in the ultimate success of this
project.
The restoration plans rely heavily on the installation of rip-rap
and other structural additions to the stream. There may be no
realistic alternatives to this engineering approach, however,
various less structural alternatives should be considered which
would allow the stream to come into a more natural equilibrium of
flooding, sedimentation and ecological balance without such
extensive use of rip-rap.
With regards to the in-stream devises (rock weir deflectors)
described in the restoration plan, we recommend that a modified
vane structure, the j-hook rock vanes are proving to provide the
most aquatic habitat diversity, as well as reducing stream current
velocities in the near-bank region. These structures, best placed
along the outside of bends in a series, provide a diversity of
micro-eddy and vortex habitats. They also function as the standard
rock vanes by diverting velocities from the most erodible high
banks along the outside of bends, directing the thalweg to the
center of the channel. .Another suggestion is to include root wads
along the outside bends, thereby providing bank protection and
aquatic habitat. Because large woody debris have been replaced
functionally in this urban setting by large white goods and grocery
carts, we also recommend that some woody debris (logs, root wads,
fascines) be anchored along banks to provide a source of carbon and
serve as habitat for benthic organisms until the planted riparian
vegetation matures and serves these natural functions.
Although there are some game and non-game species present within
the project area, and presumably some limited natural reproduction,
we recommend that this project include provisions to supplement
these population with fingerlings and adult fishes. Fish stocking
2
should occur only after the habitat improvements have stabilized
and water quality has improved.
The Fish and Wildlife Serice has reviewed records and visited the
site, and concurs with your determination that the proposed project
is not likely to adversely affect federally-listed threatened and
endangered (T&E) species. Therefore, we believe the requirements
under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations
under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
The restoration team should consider and evaluate approaches found
in the publication, "Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,
Processes, and Practices," issued in October of 1998 by the Federal
Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. The Army Corps of
Engineers had representatives serving on this team.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this report
and EA. If there/are any questions related to these comments,
please contact Bruce Bell at the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
Atlanta, GA, at 404/679-7089, or the Field Supervisor John Hefner,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Raleigh, NC, at 919/856-4520.
Sincerely,
t??0
James H. Lee
Regional Environmental Officer
3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
June 11, 1999
NIEMORANDUM
TO: Gloria Putnam
FROM: Eric Fleek
THROUGH: John Dorney
99MA
0 1 A T4
D E N R
SUBJECT: Little Sugar Creek-Draft EA Comments (DENRr# 99-0716, DWQ#12436)
Based on a review of the subject EA the following comments/recommendations need to be addressed in
the amended EA:
1. There are numerous references in the Draft EA that refers to this project as a "stream restoration
project". NCDWQ does not believe that this project-as described, qualifies as a stream restoration
project but rather would be best described as a stream enhancement/stabilization projet. Please refer
to NCDWQ's draft NW 13 and NW27 language for a definition of stream restoration.
2. The use of single and double winged deflectors are proposed for habitat enhancement throughout the
document. However, there was no mention as to what "type" of stream (via Rosgen Classification)
encompasses the project's reaches. These structures are susceptible to failure on certain stream types.
Please provide additional information supporting the selection of these methods for instream habitat
enhancement.
3. Stabilization throughout this project includes the use of hard or so-called "conventional"
armoring/stabilization techniques (e.g., riprap, gabion baskets, and riprap w/ grout etc..) for areas
where flow will exceed 4 ftJsec or in high erosion "areas" (e.g., outside meander bends). These areas
are also good candidates for "soft armoring" in the form of well designed/installed tree revetments
("root wads"). In addition to working well under high shear conditions, tree revetments offer the
additional benefit of providing outstanding habitat for both fish and invertebrates-far superior to
that offered by rip rap or gabion baskets. Serious consideration should be spent on studying the
applicability of tree revetments in all or some areas originally planned for rock stabilization.
4. There are numerous single and double wing deflectors planned for this project. Are there any
additional stabilization features to be installed up/downstream of these features on the bank to
prevent additional erosion or are the areas on the banks that are to receive theses structures stable
already?'
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Atttrmattve Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer pcper
5. This project has been designed-for the 2-year event (Page 8). The EA further states (Page 8): "Stone
protection will be placed on the banks to the 2-year flood elevation for reaches where the stream
velocities were in the range of 5-6 feet per second. Along reaches where the stream velocity range
was 4-5 feet per second, the stone toe protection will be placed to a distance of approximately 6 feet
above the stream bottom or to an elevation which is just above the normal stream flow". In general
(even in urban streams) the bankfull bench represents the elevation of the stream during a 2-year
event. In nearly all instances (with possible exceptions in pool areas), the bankfull bench is
significantly less than 6 feet above the stream bottom. Therefore, the use of rip rap/gabion basket toe
armoring should be restricted to at or below this geomorphic feature. Again, the use of tree
revetments may be a superior alternative in many instances and these structures should also be
placed at similar elevations.
6. Table 6 (Page 13) notes that no live staking will be carried out for section types 4,5, and 6-
presumably due to full bank riprap. However, live stakes are often effective when placed between
riprap. Similar techniques have proved effective on sections of McAlpine Creek (Mecklenburg
County).
7. In areas proposed for full bank riprap, supporting photographic documentation should be submitted
for review.
8. On Page EA-12, there is some mention regarding not installing plantings in areas adjacent to the
stream where there is extensive riparian tree cover. Many species (Silky Dogwood, Elderberry, etc.
do quite well in shady conditions. Consideration should be given to utilizing such species in such
riparian areas. For instance, Silky Dogwood plantings was very effective in a heavily riparian
stabilization project in Charlotte (Cove Creek).
9. Please give some details regarding the biological/physical monitoring proposed by Mecklenburg
County (Page EA-15).
10. On Page 2 of Appendix A, it ?s noted that "S", "V", or "W" shaped boulder dams and lunker boxes
will be used for instream habitat enhancement. However, there are no schematic diagrams showing
details of these structures or where in the various project reaches they are to be installed. Please
provide this information in the amended EA.
11. It is unclear from the affixed schematic sheets why the "stream deflector weirs" are not placed in
more areas of certain reaches (e.g., Plate P-4, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13). Are these
structures to be confined to use only on outside meanders? Or (as depicted on P-4, P-5, P-6) are they
going to be used in run areas?
12. All deflectors are depicted with a rip rap key/armor. Tree revetments should also be examined for
armoring.
13. Plate P-3 depicts the stream deflector oriented in the wrong direction in relation to stream flow.
If there are questions regarding these matter please feel free to contact Mr. Eric Fleek at [phone]
or at [e-mail]
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environnz ent and Natural Recour :es
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr., Regional CoordinaY?Ie Habitat Conservation Program ?- ?
I
DATE: June 8, 1999
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 99-0716: US Army Corps of Engineers Draft
Environmental Restoration Report and Environmental Assessment for Little
Sugar Creek I1abitat Restoration, Mecklenburg County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
above referenced project. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C._661-667d.) and the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 1 13A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District, is proposing to improve
instream fish habitat to recover lost habitat from the COE Federal flood control project on Little
Sugar Creek in 1978 and to provide bank stabilization, as needed within the flood control project
area and points upstream; to protect the installed habitat features from sedimentation. The
project will improve the abundance and habitat diversity of fishes and benthic organisms, slow
the loss of valuable riparian habitat, reduce in-stream sedimentation, and improve the appearance
of the creek. The proposed Section 1135 project extends about 2.2 miles along Little Sugar
Creek from Archdale Drive upstream to Brandywine Road. A short reach of Briar Creek
extending from its confluence with Little Sugar Creek to a point 1,010 feet upstream is also
included in the project.
Recommended habitat improvements generally consist of boulder clusters and stream
deflector weirs in the streambed to enhance stream complexity and create stable stream cover
conditions. Additionally, vegetative bank stabilization efforts will also provide habitat benefits.
Trees will be planted along the top of the channel slide slopes to provide stream shading, long
term bank stability, and aesthetic enhancement. Bank stabilization improvement features
generally consist of the installation of riprap at the tope of slopes.
We are pleased that the COE has developed a plan to restore degraded fish habitat and
stabilized banks along Little Sugar Creek and Briar Creek. However, we are concerned with the
placement and design of the fish habitat structures shown in the plan. Based on review of the
plan view, Plates 4 - 11, we feel that several of the fish habitat structures need to be moved or
modified. Several of the rock vanes appear to be located on the inside on meanders. In order for
rock vanes to function properly and maximize habitat potential, they should be moved to the
outside of meanders. These sites are located as follows: Plate 4, B-4; Plate 5, A-4 and E-4. Rock
vanes at the stations mentioned above, plus the following locations, Plate 4, A-5 and G-4; Plate
5, E-4; Plate 9, B-3 (3 vanes); Plate 10, C/D-2 (3 vanes) and; Plate 11, C-5 (3 vanes) should be
modified as J-Hook vanes (plans attached). J-hook vanes are much more effective as fish habitat
structures than rock vanes. Also, opposite rock vanes located on Plate 4, C-4/5 and Plate 6, E-4
should be modified as cross rock vanes (plans attached). Properly constructed cross rock vanes
will not act as dams, but will direct flows into the center of the stream, creating deep holes.
Concerning construction of rock vanes/cross vanes, detailed plans show class 1 riprap
and geotextile matting as the construction materials. Rock vanes/cross vanes should be
constructed of large boulders that average approximately 1 cubic yard in size. These boulders
should be placed on footer boulders of similar or larger size that are burried into the stream
bottom instead of being bedded on gravel filters (page 7, paragraph 1). Instead of footer rocks,
concrete slabs can be used. ythe stream substrate is sand, then the rock structures will need to
be back filled with large gravel/cobble materials or class A or B riprap. Boulder cluster rocks
should also be set on large footer rocks.
The plan shows two large, instream sediment basins, Plate 7, B-4 at the confluence of
Little Sugar and Briar Creeks. We do not favor the installation of instream sediment basins since
construction and removal of these structures can cause more damage to the stream environment
than they protect. Also, rarely is the sediment collected behind check dams removed prior to
removal of the dam, which allows for a major slug of sediment to be released downstream,
causing greater damage to aquatic organisms. We prefer that sedimentation generated during
construction be allowed to freely move through the system. The two instream check dams need
to be removed from the plan.
We are willing to meet with project sponsors to conduct a site visit and discuss these
recommendations prior to finalization of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and construction
desig
1.7 n plans. Once the final EA is prepared, it should be submitted for agency review and
approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-2982. , -
cc: Bob Johnson, COE
L.S
;A> "Wrr ?a.•? l? U yes i o.v
l? o ?t s i cv --,L
AV.
5
Lc.Vpy. S' oc../? Sao ? l6?
t TG iwa?o ?aaa?s,?[(
L
??, fvv Sev?? ? Wov? s a7- a
he
U-1 LZ w
? _/ono
P ROFrE Li rE v
y

CRoss-sE,--%ro? urcw
_ eras s Ua- e_ J
." r
C ROSS SEC! ION UI?Lv
lo06G
i
L.ONGI7c.LAS?g1, f ROFSLE
I
-3~ 3- l 3
l
5 GO ?-?-
PtAPi UXaw

Joel O. WWXXM P.E. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING
Robert T. Payne. P.E.
¦ Network Pksrnng, pes+pn and EngneeAng
Philp E. W1111larns. P.E. • Central Office. Trorardsson and Outsfoe Plant
Samuel C. Berry. P.E. CATV and Brombond
Slrnms P E
Johnny
L
N
H M I DSOUT H
ate Vdice and Data Network EngneeMq
¦ Egert Investigation and Appraisal
¦ Trow*-9 and Education Services

Mid-South Consulting Engineers. Inc. i
¦ 3901 Rose Lake Drive. Charlotte. North Carolina 28217 ¦ 704/357-0004 ¦ FAX: [phone] ¦ VM: 704/357-0705
June 25, 1999
Mr. W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corp of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RE: Environmental Restoration Project for Little Sugar Creek in Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Long:
After reviewing your plans for habitat restoration of Little Sugar Creek in Charlotte, North Carolina, we
have concluded that our present facilities near Archdale Drive area do not interfere with your proposed
changes.
If there is anything else that you may need, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
MID-SOUTH CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
By
William G. Eldridge, Asst. Staff Mgr.
WGE:jpf
State of North Caroli?._
Department of Environment and Natural Resources R
i
i
Offi
ew
ev
ng
ce:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date: G '
After rc,,iew of thi
i
s project
t has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
comply with North Carolina Law
Questions
di
h order for this project to
.
regar
ng t
ese permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines rel
ti
t
h
ve
a
o t
ese plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
PERIrII I S
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time limit)
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer
systems Application 90 days before begirt construction or award of construction

i
30 days

not discltargirtg into state surface waters contracts On -s
te inspection Post-application technical conference usual.
(90 days)
rmit to discharge into surface water and/o
erate and construct wastewater faciliti r Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-application 90-120 days
es
into state surface waters. conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater
treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after recei
t of
p
plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later. /A
'2 )
ermit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
( (N/A)
ction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the

installation ofa well. I 7 days
(IS days)
Dredge
ill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian
ro
ert
w
p
p
y o
ner.
On-site inspection- Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require S5 days
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge L(9 0 days)
and Fill Permit
O Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2Q.0100. 2Q.0300, 2H.0600) 60 days
pen burning associated with subject proposal
e in compliance with 13 A NCAC 2D. 19001
F
ition or renovations of structures containing
s material must be in compliance with 1S A 60 dais
2D.I 110 (a) (I) which requires notification and
l
prior to demolition. Contra Asbestos Convol
NI
919-733-0820.
(90 dais)
J Complex Source Permit required under IS A NCAC
0800
Sedimentation Pollution Control act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
tiocontrol plan will be re
uired if
T
q
one or mor
) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A ! e o e acres to he disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality
fS30 for the first acre and 5_000 f
h 20 days

ompany the plan. or eac
additional acre or put must
(' )
30 davs
7 T'ee Sedimentation Pollution Convol Act of 1973 matt, be addressed with rsspeet to tl a referenced Local Ordinance
.
(30 days)
:3 Mtnutg Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mute and number of acres of affected land. Any are reined greater 30 davs
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit can be issued.
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days I day
(N/A)
O Soecial Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than I day
five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be i /A
)
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned"
7 Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required a lication 60 der before be
pp Ys gin construction Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction
,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require
30 der
n
permit under uito control
mosq program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. A.
inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification A
(60 days)
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
Continued on reverse
Normal Process Tune

(
statutory time limit'
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of 55,000 with ENR cunning to State of NC conditional that 10 days
any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged . (N/A)
according to ENR rules and regulations
O I Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue Of permit- 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form (N/A)
0 1 State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged Must include descriptions & 15-20 days
drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
O 401 Water Quality Certification N/A 60 days
(130 days)
O CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fe-- in= accompany application 55 days
(150 days)
O I CAbtA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 dais)
O Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify.
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
O Abandonment of any wells. if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
O I Notification of the proper regiunal office is requested if -orphan- underground storage tzrtks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
O I Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required 45 days
(N/A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary. being certain to cite comment authority)

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
O Asheville Regional Office
59 Wooditn Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P-0. Box 950
vlooresvillt, NC 28115
[phone]
O Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Faveneville, NC 28301
[phone]
O Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh NC 27609
[phone]
O Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington. NC 27889
919) 946-6481
O Wilrnington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington- NC 28405
[phone]
O Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown St.
Winston-Salem. NC 27107
[phone]
r ?te?
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
May 20, 1999
Mr. Bill Adams
Department of the Army
Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Adams:
Subject: Environmental Assessment - DRAFT Environmental Restoration Report for the
Proposed Restoration Project on the Little Sugar Creek, in Charlotte, to Restore Aquatic
Habitat
The N. C. State Clearinghouse, has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 99-E-0000-0716. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 06/20/1999 . Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

North Carolina
C/?«GGIG•Ult^% C U/1?I'Ilj??
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
June 21, 1999
Mr. Bill Adams
Department of the Army
Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Adams:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Re: SCH File m 99-E-0000-0716; Environmental Assessment DRAFT Environmental Restoration
Report for the Proposed Restoration Project on the Little Sugar Creek. in Charlotte, to Restore
Aquatic Habitat
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. No comments were made by any state or local agency in the course of this review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental PoIicv Act Coordinator
cc: Region F
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
A. Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
RCDEINR
JAMES B. HUNTJR.' _
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee 4-/
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 99-0716 Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration,
Mecklenburg County
DATE: June 23, 1999
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
completed its review of the subject proposal. This
department ask that careful consideration be given to the
attached recommendations provided by our commenting
divisions. The applicant is encouraged. to work directly
with our agencies in addressing their issues prior to
finalizing project plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments

JUN 2 8 M9J
NI.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW_EHNR.STATE.Nc.US/EHNR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/1 Oq POST-CONSUMER PAPER

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G.-Dorsett, Secretary
June 21, 1999
Mr. Bill Adams
Department of the Army
Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Adams:
Re: SCH File # 99-E-0000-0716; Environmental Assessment DRAFT Environmental Restoration
Report for the Proposed Restoration Project on the Little Sugar Creek, in Charlotte, to Restore
Aquatic Habitat
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. No comments were made by any state or local agency in the course of this review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
S1ncerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
cc: Region F
116 West Jones Street RaleiGh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
June 14, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
DENR EnvironmeeQntal Coordinator
From: Gloria Putnam
DWQ SEPA Coordinator
[7A. ?
NCDENR
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Little Sugar
Creek Habitat Restoration Project
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
DENR# 99-0716, DWQ# 12436
The Division of Water Quality (Division) has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Assessment for the Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration Project in Charlotte. The
Division offers the attached comments made by Eric Fleek of our 401 Wetlands Unit. If
there are questions concerning these comments please have the applicant contact Mr.
Fleek directly. However, please route any responses to these comments through me for
concurrence review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Cc: Eric Fleek, 401 Wetlands Unit
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
I
US Army Corps
of Engineers.
Wilmington District
Environmental Assessment
and
Finding Of No Significant Impact
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK HABITAT
RESTORATION
City of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
January 2000

MAR 2 0 20M
WETLANDS GROUP
' IATER QUALRY SECTION
K2
?" North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commissiong
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM 1 TO: John R. Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resour 's
i
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinat ??
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 16, 2000
SUBJECT: Review of an Application by US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District,
Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration, Mecklenburg County.
The Corps of Engineers is requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality. The NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the
applicant, and field biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat values of the project area.
These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33
U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
We previously commented on this project through the Environmental Assessment (EA)
process. Our previous comments are attached. We are concerned about the inclusion of rock
riprap and gabion baskets in the 401 Application. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
commission d1jring our Previous environmental review did not consider the use of gabions. Our
review indicated that the project would include J-hooks, boulder clusters and some riprapp. We
respectfully request that the use of hard structures be minimized and that the use of riprap and
gabions be utilized very judiciously and without jeopardizing the intended benefits found in the
EA. We recommend that the utilization of bioengineering and native stream revegetation be
given maximum consideration during the permitting process.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: Rex Gleason, Mooresville DWQ
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commissiong
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 2, 2000
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. OOE-0407, DRAFT Environmental Restoration and EA for
Section 206, Ecosystem Restoration, Little Sugar Creek,
Mecklenburg County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the above project. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission does not object to the proposed project as
environmental and water quality benefits should be forthcoming. We are concerned that the project may not be able
to provide a full streambed restoration; however, we understand that the situation is very poor at present. Habitat
improvements should be anticipated. We recommend that North Carolina piedmont regional curves for urban areas
be utilized to determine whether or not the restoration is practicable for this watershed without additional
stormwater management and detention practices.
We urge the Corps of Engineers and the City of Charlotte to provide as much off site detention and
woodland preservation in the basin as possible. These measures should not be allowed in existing waters and
wetlands. Controlling the hydrograph at current levels or reducing the hydrograph should be paramount as additional
impervious areas and elevated runoff will exacerbate the stream restoration project. We appreciate that the base
flow of the stream will be meandered and isolated so as to form a "distinct low flow channel". This should provide
for a deeper channel during low flow conditions, which should assist in providing greater potential for biodiversity
restoration. "Full slope bank riprap" should be minimized by providing larger trees at critical locations and by using
softer stabilization techniques whenever possible such as fabric and root wads. Utilization of larger wetland shrubs
and trees instead of cattails for the wetland planting should be considered for the broader benefits they can provide.
All right-of-way limits for the project should be permanent and naturally vegetated whenever possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Environmental Resources Section
February 16, 2000
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
n
I MAR 11000
_rtiVLS
GROUP
_? ?";,-I ?"?JA?ITY SECTIO(y
Enclosed is an Application for 401 Water Quality Certification, pursuant to Section
401 of Public Law 95-217, for the proposed Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration, City
of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for this project is also enclosed.
Should you have any questions concerning the application, please contact
Mr. Daniel Small, Planning Services Section, at [phone].
Sincerely,
-13en F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosures (7 copies)
PAYMENT
RECEIVfD
000271
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION,
CITY OF CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: February 16, 2000
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Wilmington District C?
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: James W. DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Small
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Little
Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration City of Charlotte Mecklenburg County North
Carolina dated January 2000.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Little Sugar Creek has its headwaters
within the city of Charlotte, North Carolina. Its watershed is highly urbanized, and the
large amount of impervious surface, non-point runoff, and construction activity has led
to severe degradation of the stream and its associated natural communities. In 1978,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a flood control project on the creek
between its confluence with Briar Creek downstream to Archdale Road. This project
consisted of constructing a trapezoidal channel, designed to promote rapid passage of
floodflows through improved hydrologic efficiency of the stream channel. When that
project was constructed, it included no environmental features and thus contributed to
the further decline of the aquatic resource values of the stream. The proposed project,
discussed in this report, would restore many of the habitat values which were eliminated
1 -
by the flood control project through placement of fishery enhancement structures in the
area of the flood control project and streambank stabilization on Little Sugar Creek
upstream to Brandywine Road and on Briar Creek upstream to Park Road. The project
calls for placement of fishery enhancement structures in seven areas of Little Sugar
Creek and riparian tree plantings.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: Early 2001, depending on funding.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
_ Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: City of Charlotte, North Carolina
County: Mecklenburg
Drainage Basin: Catawba River
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Piedmont
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: Southerly
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The material to
be placed within the stream channel is rock riprap, gabion baskets, and fish
enhancement structures. No silty or organic material is to be placed within the stream
channel. The material to be placed within the stream channel is not contaminated or
polluted.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE:
None.
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA HQW
OR ORW?
- YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
2
Filled: About 1.0 acres of unvegetated, shallow channelized stream channel.
Excavated: None.
Total Impacted: 1.0 acres.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action will improve the abundance and
diversity of fishes and benthic organisms, slow the loss of valuable riparian habitat,
reduce in-stream sedimentation, and improve the appearance of the creek.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED
FOR USE ON THIS PROPERTY?
-YES X NO IF YES, EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: 2 1 00
Enclosures
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
3
ooo271
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION,
CITY OF CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: February 16, 2000 PAYMENT
RECEIVED
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: James W. DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Small
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Little
Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration City of Charlotte Mecklenburg County North
Carolina dated January 2000.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Little Sugar Creek has its headwaters
within the city of Charlotte, North Carolina. Its watershed is highly urbanized, and the
large amount of impervious surface, non-point runoff, and construction activity has led
to severe degradation of the stream and its associated natural communities. In 1978,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a flood control project on the creek
between its confluence with Briar Creek downstream to Archdale Road. This project
consisted of constructing a trapezoidal channel, designed to promote rapid passage of
floodflows through improved hydrologic efficiency of the stream channel. When that
project was constructed, it included no environmental features and thus contributed to
the further decline of the aquatic resource values of the stream. The proposed project,
discussed in this report, would restore many of the habitat values which were eliminated
by the flood control project through placement of fishery enhancement structures in the
area of the flood control project and streambank stabilization on Little Sugar Creek
upstream to Brandywine Road and on Briar Creek upstream to Park Road. The project
calls for placement of fishery enhancement structures in seven areas of Little Sugar
Creek and riparian tree plantings.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: Early 2001, depending on funding.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
_ Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: City of Charlotte, North Carolina
County: Mecklenburg
Drainage Basin: Catawba River
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Piedmont
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: Southerly
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The material to
be placed within the stream channel is rock riprap, gabion baskets, and fish
enhancement structures. No silty or organic material is to be placed within the stream
channel. The material to be placed within the stream channel is not contaminated or
polluted.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE:
None.
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA HQW,
OR ORW?
_ YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
2
Filled: About 1.0 acres of unvegetated, shallow channelized stream channel.
Excavated: None.
Total Impacted: 1.0 acres.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action will improve the abundance and
diversity of fishes and benthic organisms, slow the loss of valuable riparian habitat,
reduce in-stream sedimentation, and improve the appearance of the creek.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED
FOR USE ON THIS PROPERTY?
-YES X NO IF YES. EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
A
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE:2 14 DD
Enclosures
For prompt processing, submit: _
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
Copies of previous 401 Certifications
3
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Environmental Resources Section
February 8, 2000
PAYMENT
Mr. John Dorney RECEIVED
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:

Enclosed is an Application for 401 Water Quality Certification, pursuant to Section
401 of Public Law 95-217, for the proposed Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Project for Little Sugar Creek. The Environmental Assessment, Section
206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project, Little Sugar Creek, City of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, dated January 2000 for this project is also
enclosed.
Should you have any questions concerning the application, please contact
Mr. Hugh Heine, Environmental Resources Section, at [phone].
Sincerely,
c
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosures

TI!lAi
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
FOR THE PROPOSED
SECTION 206 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT,
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK, CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: February 8, 2000
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: James W. DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Small
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project, Little Sugar
Creek, City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed EA.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Little Sugar Creek has its headwaters within
the city of Charlotte, North Carolina. Its watershed is high =ctivi!ty , an the large
amount of impervious surface, non-point runoff, and c struction has led to
severe degradation of the stream and its associate natural communities. The
proposed action, discussed in this report, would restore many of the habitat values
which were eliminated by the past channelization work within the project area through
placement of fishery enhancement structures, riparian tree plantings, wetland creation,
and removal of structures on Little Sugar Creek from Tyvola Road to East Boulevard
1
and streambank stabilization on Little Sugar Creek from Brandywine Road to East
Boulevard. The proposed action is located upstream of the Section 1135/Federal flood
control project.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: Early 2001, depending on funding.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: City of Charlotte, North Carolina
County: Mecklenburg
Drainage Basin: Catawba River
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Piedmont
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: Southerly
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The material to
be placed within the stream channel is rock riprap and fish enhancement structures. No
silty or organic material is to be placed within the stream channel. The material to be
placed within the stream channel is not contaminated or polluted.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE:
None.
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HQW,
OR ORW?
- YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: About 1.0 acres of unvegetated, shallow channelized stream channel.
Excavated: None.
Total Impacted: 1.0 acres.
2
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO. NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action will improve the abundance and
diversity of fishes and benthic organisms, slow the loss of valuable riparian habitat,
reduce in-stream sedimentation, and improve the appearance of the creek.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED
FOR USE ON THIS PROPERTY?
-YES X NO IF YES, EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: GgD
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
AQUATIC RESTORATION PROJECT
0
'OG

RIGHT OF WAY
COIN TOP WRAP LWITS (VARIES)
10' 10'.25'
ROOTED PLANT SEE NOTE
LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS
EXISTING FAILED
GEOTEXTLE WRAP STREAMBANK
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
GEOGRN
RE]WORCENENT
STONE/SOL MX
50/50 BLEND
CLASS T!'
STONE
BANK SLOUGHING REPAIR
NOT TO SCALE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 103+15 - 107+00
LTTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 114+00 - 116+00 (WEST BANK)
LTTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 121+30 - 125+05 (WEST BANK)
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 122+70 - 126+80 (EAST BANK)

Q?
?'
??? col ??<
p??L
9
NOT EROSION i
CONTROL '
EROSION CONTROL
/ FABRIC EXISTING
FABRIC (TYPICAL)
EXISTING LIVE GROUND
GROUND STAKING
(TYP•) PLANT SPACING BASED
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MAT. PER ON TYPE OF VEGETATION
?
MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS ON AND SITE CONDITIONS
R?
NORMAL p
EXISTING SLOPES WITH LIVE STAKING. BASE FLOW
JOINT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLACE ---__- tic
BETWEEN RIPRAP STONE .
I' COCONUT
FIBER ROLL
RP RAP TYPICAL
W/JOINT PLANTINGS EROSION CONTROL FABRIC W/LIVE STAKING
GEOTEXTILE NOT TO SCALE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.80+25 - 89+10 (EAST BANK)
RIPRAP AND EROSION CONTROL FABRIC LTTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.92+20 - 96+98
NOT TO SCALE LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.98+48 -100+60
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 107+00 - 114+00 (WEST BANK)
LTTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 86+00 - 88+80 (WEST BANK)
I LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 107+00 22+00 (EAST BANK)
L
TTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 96+98 - 98+48 (WEST BANK) LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.116+00 - 120+30 (WEST BANK)
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 96+98 - 98+48 (EAST BANK)
TYPICAL STREAMBANK STABILIZTION SECTIONS

T4
2 CJ1 'Mill
T
C / v Ti /
LmA Z^ Pinwill. 51
o°
n
.1 GYU Ur 3I RCAM11AN1 J ADILILA I IUIV
AND AQUATIC RESTORATION PROJECT
4
CONCRETE DAM
STRUCTURE W/
ROLLER GATES
(TO BE REMOVE)
FAEEDOY PARK o

y4R?S
F(0
20-30'
OTHER TYPICAL FISHERY ENHANCEMENT
STRUCTURES (NOT SHOWN) INCLUDES
CROSS VANE, ROCK VANE, ROCK WEIR,
AND STREAM DEFLECTORS
TOE OF SLOPE i
BOULDER
CLUSTERS
511,'
0'W
/ FOOTERS (TYP.) ?t 4 Std
24' NOTES:
ROCK 0?'
I. ROCKS IN VANE ARE
Oe NOT SPACED.
2. ROCKS IN 'J' SECTION ARE
SPACED %2 ROCK WIDTH.
1STRUCTURE SPANS %2 TO
2/3 OF STREAM WIDTH
TYPICAL "J' HOOK VANE BOULDER CLUSTERS
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.1+30 - 170+40 LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.1+30 - 170+40
TYPICAL FISHERY ENHANCEMENT PLAN VIEWS

CRY OF CHARLOTTE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, N.C.
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
Sm 0 sw Am
OCWE N FW7
U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 1
US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Wilmington District -
DRAFT
Environmental Restoration Report
and
Environmental Assessment
? Section 206 Ecosystem Restoration
Little Sugar Creek
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
North Carolina
0 February 2000
• protect the aquatic
upstream limit of the
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY n 206 project area).
p at the toe of slopes.
This study was conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing measures to restore nel bank sections that are
aquatic habitat on a reach of Little Sugar Creek, in the city of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, provide a more
North Carolina. Investigation of the proposed project was conducted under the continuing ivironment. Some
authority of Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as amended (Section ?gs and storm drain
•m Park, located
206).
removed.
Little Sugar Creek has its headwaters within the City of Charlotte, North Carolina. Its watershed
is highly urbanized, and the large amount of impervious surface, non-point runoff, and
construction activity has led to severe degradation of the stream and its associated natural
communities. In 1978, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a flood control project on
the creek between its confluence with Briar Creek downstream to Archdale Road. This project
consisted of constructing a trapezoidal channel, designed to promote rapid passage of floodflows
through improved hydrologic efficiency of the stream channel. When that project was
constructed, it included no environmental features and thus contributed to the further decline of
the aquatic resource values of the stream.
i by the Federal
hare is 35 percent of the
easements, rights of
the project. This
estimated $13,000 for
storing and $10,000 for
?f the non-Federal
Additional requirements
)mmendations" section of
The Corps has been involved with studying flood problems in Charlotte, North Carolina, for
• many years. Most recently, the Corps studied the proposed Little Sugar Creek Habitat authority provided by
Restoration (Section 1135) project. The proposed Section 1135 project extends about 2.2 miles is
along Little Sugar Creek from Archdale Drive upstream to Brandywine Road. A short reach of required. This should
Briar Creek extending from its confluence with Little Sugar Creek to a point 1,010 feet upstream project, and subject to )ns is also included in the project. The proposed project includes fishery habitat enhancement y for 2001 the and proposed completion in
features in the Section 205 project area and bank stabilization upstream to Brandywine Road on y
Little Sugar Creek and on Briar Creek from the confluence with Little Sugar Creek upstream to
Park Road. The Section 1135 Feasibility Report is currently awaiting approval.
The Section 206 project would include aquatic ecosystem restoration features from Tyvola Road
to East Boulevard, along Little Sugar Creek in this 3.2-mile project area. Note that the above
mentioned proposed Section 1135 project included bank stablization for part of this reach
(Tyvola Road to Brandywine Road). However, the 1135 project provides no aquatic ecosytem
restoration from Tyvola Road to Brandywine Road. The Section 206 project would fulfill the
restoration need in this reach common to both projects.
The aquatic ecosystem restoration features include: 14 boulder clusters, 6 stream deflector weirs,
1 rock weir, 9 cross vanes, 7 "J" hook vanes, and 3 rock vanes which would be placed within the
stream channel of Little Sugar Creek. Rock vanes, stream deflectors, and J-Hook vanes project
into the stream at an upstream angle of 24 degrees, placed either staggered or directly opposite
each other to diversify flows through deflection or creation of scoured areas. These will be used
in conjunction with the cross vanes, rock weir, and boulder clusters that will be bedded either on
footer boulders or concrete slabs.
• ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
SECTION I INTRODUCTION --- -- 1
Authority and Background?------------------- ------- --------------- -------- ----------- 1
Scope o Study --------------- - ---------------------------- - ----------------------------------
2
Study Participants and Coordination ------------------------------------------------------- 2
is Report Organization-------------------- 2
Existing Federal Project ------- ----------- _------- ___
SECTION H PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 3
Field Observations ----------------- -------- ---------------------------------- ----------- 5
Hydrology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5
SECTION III OBJECTIVES AND PLAN FORMULATION -6
Upstream Limit -------------------------------------------- 9
------------------------------------
Evaluation of Alternatives and Plan Selection -----------------------------------------10
SECTION IV SELECTED PLAN FOR HABITAT RESTORATION 12
Description ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
Project Construction -------------------------------------------------------------------------12
Project Construction Considerations------------------------------------------------12
Sediment and Erosion Control Measures---------------------------------------------13
Structures and Utility Crossings -------------------------------------------------------13
Project Easements----------------------- --- 13
Output ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
Costs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
Post Construction Requirements ----- ---------------- __-____________----- 17
Maintenance -----------------------------------------------------------------------17
Monitoring ---- ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------17
Environmental Impacts ------------------------------------------------------------------17
i
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page Number
SECTION V DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES 17
Cost Sharing-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
Financial Responsibility---------------------------------------------------------------------18
SECTION VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18
Conclusions -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
Recommendations--------------------------------------------------------------------------19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Riparian Habitat Over 50-Year Project Life (If No Action is Taken)------------11
LIST OF TABLES
•
Table
Number
Title
Page Number
1 Little Sugar Creek Flood Flows (cfs) ---------------------------------------------- 4
2 Riparian Habitat (In Acres) Remaining Over Time Under Various
Stabilization Options -----------------------------------------------------11
3 Available Habitat Types Before and After The Restoration
Project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------14
4 Total Project Cost Summary Little Sugar Creek Ecosystem Restoration
Section 206 .............................................................................................16
5 Cost Sharing, Selected Plan ----------------------------------------------------18
LIST OF PLATES
Ob
Plate
Number
Title
Follows
Page Number
1
Map Showing Proposed Project Features ..........................................18
ii
• TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING
OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
(printed on green paper)
TECIINICAL APPENDIXES
TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION REPORT
Appendix Title
A REAL ESTATE PLAN
B DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• C SITE PLANS
D MCACES COST ESTIMATE
•
iii
• ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION REPORT
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
FOR
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to determine the feasibility of aquatic ecosystem restoration on a 3.2
mile reach of Little Sugar Creek, in the city of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Over the years essentially all woody stream bank vegetation in the area and, through grade
improvements, most of the aquatic habitat diversity that was present was removed. Today, the
stream banks are vegetated'with small shrubs and grasses and the stream bottom is a long;' '
unstable, continuous sandy run offering no habitat structure.
As a part of ongoing programs to improve the quality of the environment for all of their citizens,
the government officials of the city of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County approached the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about potential environmental lrestoration of the streambanks
along Little Sugar Creek. Working closely with them, a project has been developed that will
restore degraded aquatic habitat and reduce the impacts of erosive stream flows. The proposed
project would consist of improving instream fish cover to recover lost habitat values within the
flood control project area and providing bank stabilization, as needed, along points upstream to
protect the installed habitat features from sedimentation. The project will improve the abundance
and diversity of fishes and benthic organisms, slow the loss of valuable riparian habitat, reduce
instream sedimentation, and improve the appearance of the creek.
AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project study was conducted under authority of Section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 as amended. On January 14, 1999; the Wilmington District
submitted a Preliminary Restoration Plan proposing the restoration project.
0
• SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study included Little Sugar Creek in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The primary
study focus was on the degraded aquatic habitat in the reach from Tyvola Road upstream to East
Boulevard, all completely within the City of Charlotte. The project area is shown on Plate 1, which
is found at the end of this report. For reference purposes, stream stationing has been defined for
the project with station 0+00 Little Sugar Creek located at the Tyvola Road Bridge.
STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) was an important participant in this
study, who, in turn, coordinated the data concerning aquatic habitat in Little Sugar Creek with other
agencies under the administration of the city of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality also assisted in design of the aquatic habitat restoration.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This document includes the Environmental Restoration Report (ERR) and Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Little Sugar Creek Habitat
Restoration, NC. Appendixes to the ERR follow the EA which is printed on green paper. The
ERR presents the results of planning studies conducted to address the degraded aquatic habitat.
The EA presents data required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other Federal
laws and executive orders pertaining to environmental quality.
EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECT
An existing Federal flood control project on Little Sugar Creek extends from Archdale Drive
upstream to the confluence with Briar Creek, a distance of 0.78 miles. The project is a
trapezoidal channel with a 50-foot bottom width. The project was completed in 1978 at a Federal
cost of $763,000, under the continuing authority of Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1948, as amended.
•
2
• SECTION II - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Historically, Little Sugar Creek had a variety of aquatic habitats available including riffles, runs,
and pools. These habitats had within them other structural features which provided refuge and/or
feeding habitat for fishes including undercut banks, overhanging shrubs, and snags. The
streambanks were, for the most part, forested, which provided stream shading and input of leaves
and other vegetative material. Because of these features, the stream supported a diverse
freshwater fishery that was probably limited only by water quality and sedimentation.
Concurrent with the growth of the Charlotte area came a need for flood control within the Little
Sugar Creek basin. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked closely with Mecklenburg
County to develop a cost-effective solution to the flooding problem, resulting in a flood control
project on Little Sugar Creek from Archdale Drive upstream to the confluence with Briar Creek,
which is mentioned above. This project removed essentially all streambank vegetation in the
project area and, through grade improvements, removed most of the aquatic habitat diversity
which had been present. This existing flood control project is located downstream of the
proposed Section 206 action.
A Corps of Engineers study is currently underway, which is being conducted under Section 1135
of the Water Resources Development Act-of 1986 (PL99-662). Section 1135 allows the, Corps to
study and construct measures to restore habitat values degraded by the construction of a Corps of
• Engineers project (in this case the Section 205 project from Archdale Road to the confluence of
Little Sugar and Briar Creeks). A habitat restoration plan has been developed for this reach of
Little Sugar Creek that downstream from the Section 206 study area. The Section 1135 proposed
project, is in the feasibility phase. It will restore degraded aquatic habitat in the flood control
project area and reduce the impacts on these measures caused by erosive stream flows in
upstream areas. The proposed project would consist of improving in-stream fish cover to recover
lost habitat values and providing bank stabilization, as needed within the flood control project
area and points upstream, to protect the installed habitat features from sedimentation. The
project will improve the abundance and diversity of fishes and benthic organisms, slow the loss
of valuable riparian habitat, reduce in-stream sedimentation, and improve the appearance of the
creek. The proposed Section 1135 project extends about 2.2 miles along Little Sugar Creek from
Archdale Drive upstream to Brandywine Road. A short reach of Briar Creek extending from its
confluence with Little Sugar Creek to a point 1,010 feet upstream is also included in the
proposed project. This proposed project abuts the Section 206 study area on the south. It should
be noted that no aquatic habitat improvement measures are included in the Section 1135 project
plan in the reach from Tyvola Road to Brandywine Road.
The Little Sugar Creek Section 206 study area is 3.2 mile long and extends from Tyvola Road to
East Boulevard. The stream channel had been earlier straightened and the stream banks
stabilized with concrete and grouted riprap. Additionally, a stream hydraulic control structure
was constructed on Little Sugar Creek approximately 450 feet north of Princeton Avenue.
•
3
• Today the streambanks in this project area are vegetated with woody shrubs and grasses and the
stream bottom is a long, unstable, continuous sandy run offering little or no habitat structure.
While no before and after studies were conducted for Little Sugar Creek, studies performed in
other areas show great declines in abundance of some species can occur following stream
channelization. Reduced habitat diversity is generally believed to be the primary cause of
declines in aquatic communities and fisheries. In the absence of maintenance, the vegetation
along channelized streams will eventually recover; however, recovery periods are expected to be
lengthy. Given the periodic maintenance for flood control purposes that Mecklenburg County
undertakes in the project area, vegetation recovery is not anticipated.
Upstream streambank erosion and development will continue to provide sediment sources which
will effectively limit natural recovery of the aquatic system. The channelization of Little Sugar
Creek within the project area has exacerbated existing erosive flow conditions upstream of the
project by altering the hydrologic gradient of the area. The exact limit of such affects is unclear.
Erosive flow conditions occur throughout the Little Sugar Creek watershed above the study area
and are responsible for the input of large quantities of sediment into the stream following each
storm event. As a result, the diversity of the aquatic community has declined.
Research of maps, property records, and record aerial photography of the Section 206 study area
showed that channel. straightening occurred :in portions of.Little Sugar Creek beginning in. 1911.
Although specific details about the work were not found, it was performed to promote drainage,
control malaria, and increase agricultural production. More recently, as development has
• occurred and continues to occur in the area, sporadic channel and streambank projects have been
completed. North of Brandywine Road, riprap has been installed intermittently on the east and
west banks, particularly in the area just north of Brandywine Road adjacent to the Park Road
Shopping Center. These intermittently armored slopes are covered with viney growth that, in
some cases, obscures the riprap except at the water's edge.
An inoperable stream hydraulic control structure is located on Little Sugar Creek approximately
450 feet north of Princeton Avenue. This structure consists of a 3-cell radial gate system for low
flow control. The two eastern most gates are fixed in a position of approximately 2/3 open and
the western gate is closed. The radial gates are encased or covered by a concrete slab that acts as
a broad crested weir during larger storm events when the structure is overtopped. The top of the
weir is several feet below the top of bank. Channel banks immediately up and downstream of the
structure are concrete lined but have experienced significant undermining and, in some cases,
embankment failure. Large chunks of broken concrete are present in and around the stream
channel.
The City of Charlotte is preparing to construct a large storm drainage improvement project
referred to as the Princeton Avenue/Queens Road West Storm Drainage Improvements that will
affect this area. This improvement project consists of storm drainage system repair and
replacement along Princeton Road and in the Myers Park/Queens Road West area on the east
side of Little Sugar Creek. The plans call for the installation of a new 72-inch storm sewer
• outfall into Little Sugar Creek on the east side and upstream of the Princeton Avenue Bridge.
4
• On July 23, 1997, Little Sugar Creek experienced a major storm event, estimated to be in excess
of the 100-year event. Post-flood event reconnaissance showed significant additional erosion in
expected locations, although no major failures occurred. In addition, the floodflows flattened the
vegetative cover, exposing areas of steep, marginally stable banks.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Field reconnaissance of the area was conducted during periods of base flow to investigate site
conditions and collect information for the purpose of determining where streambank stabilization
is necessary and what types of protective measures would be most appropriate. Bank erosion
was observed to be present throughout the area, particularly at abrupt transitions (e.g., sharp
bends, bridges). Although no potentially catastrophic property or life-threatening bank failures
were observed, loss of property due to bank sloughing was observed to be an ongoing problem.
For the most part, erosion at the toe of slopes was the primary mechanism of bank failure. This
condition is generally caused by the increased erosive forces arising from more frequent and
larger magnitude streamflows experienced in an urban watershed. The bank soils are more
susceptible to failure because of these increased forces. Uncontrolled, concentrated runoff from
the overbanks and poorly constructed storm drainage outfalls also contribute to the observed
erosion conditions.
is Generally, the vegetative cover and canopy along the streambanks were observed to be fair for a
stream in an urban environment. Vegetative bank cover observed was typically viney material
and other shallow rooted plants that provide limited erosion protection. There are some reaches
with stands of mature trees on the upper banks that provide good stream canopy, primarily in the
areas of single-family residential land use.
HYDROLOGY
Ogden Environmental and Engineering Services, Inc., under contract with the city of Charlotte,
accomplished the Little Sugar Creek watershed-modeling project using HEC-2. The HEC-2
model study started about 800 feet downstream of the Tyvola Bridge and extends upstream of
Little Sugar Creek for approximately 11.0 miles. The drainage area encompasses approximately
16 square miles at the downstream project limit (Brandywine Road). Output from the HEC-2
analysis included water surface profiles, depth of flow, and channel velocities along various
reaches within the study limits for six flood frequencies. Based on data developed in this study, a
composite runoff curve number for the drainage area contributing to the project reach is
estimated to be 80-85, indicating an imperviousness of approximately 60 to 70 percent. Because
of this high degree of imperviousness, the watershed experiences quick response to storm runoff,
which translates to rapid increases in stream flows. For design purposes, the 2-year flood flows
were used in conjunction with field observations to determine the necessity, extent, and type of
toe protection.
5
• A summary of the estimate of peak flood flows developed in the modeling study in downstream
areas is presented in table 1 below. Plates in Appendix B show stream bottom and water surface
profiles for peak flood flows within the project limits (these plates not included in this draft).
TABLE 1
Little Sugar Creek Flood Flows (cfs)
Location 2-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year 500-year
Tyvola Road 2379 5967 7998 9670 11,203 15,359
Confluence 1/ 2516 6183 8127 9765 11,344 15,413
Park Road 2109 4572 5496 6137 6702 8299
Woodlawn Road 2130 4571 5465 6098 6651 8238
Brandywine Road 2127 4576 5456 6097 6661 8291
1/ Little Sugar-Briar Creek confluence

is
SECTION III - OBJECTIVES AND PLAN FORMULATION
The goal of the project is to restore aquatic habitat lost by the channelization of Little Sugar
Creek, from Brandywine Road to East Boulevard. A secondary goal of the project is to reduce
upstream sediment input into the restored area. Site assessment has revealed that the most
significant source of sediment in the area appears to be streambank erosion; therefore, this
problem is most effectively combated with bank stabilization in areas which are rapidly eroding.
In most urban streams and creeks, restoration to pristine conditions is an unrealistic goal due to
the extent of prior watershed alteration. It has been documented that degradation of stream
quality occurs at relatively low levels (10-20 percent) of imperviousness; and at watershed
imperviousness levels above 30 percent, predevelopment channel stability and biodiversity
cannot be fully maintained, even when Best Management Practices (BMP's) or retrofits are fully
applied. The restoration objectives in urban streams should then be set to target realistically
attainable conditions. For the reach of interest along Little Sugar Creek, this translates to
reduction of bank erosion and partial restoration of aquatic and riparian habitat.
Specific goals identified for the Little Sugar Creek project and the expected benefits are as
follows:
Goal
Benefits
Restoration of Aquatic and Increases biodiversity
Riparian Habitat Improves water quality
6
• Improves aeration of streamflow
Stabilization of Streambanks Stops the loss of trees and other riparian habitat
Mitigates the threat of damage to infrastructure and
buildings
Stops the loss of real property
Decreases sediment loading from erosion
Improves aesthetics of stream corridor
Stabilization of Storm Drain Mitigates erosive point source discharges
Outfalls Improves visual appeal of channel
Improves aesthetics of stream corridor
Improvement of Channel Minimizes erosive forces at bridges and threat of
Transitions Through Bridges damage
Improves stream hydraulics through bridges
Development of Greenways/Pocket Increases recreational opportunities
Along Stream Corridor Promotes perception of creek as community
3 resource
Improves aesthetics of stream corridor
•
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Urban stream restoration is a process that attempts to recreate, to the extent practicable, the
morphology, habitat features, and biological integrity found in undisturbed streams. The two
primary goals of streambank stabilization and limited habitat restoration can be achieved through
a variety of techniques.
Mecklenburg County currently utilizes two general types of bank stabilization techniques:
conventional bank stabilization and soil bioengineering. Conventional bank stabilization
techniques consist primarily of riprap, gabion walls, or grouted riprap and are used at sharp
bends and other bank sections subject to significant erosion forces, toe-of-bank slopes, and where
facilities are threatened by bank instability. These techniques, by themselves, provide some
habitat benefits, but can be supplemented to be somewhat responsive to changes in stream
characteristics and replace significant habitat deficiencies. The appearance, strength, and habitat
qualities of conventional bank stabilization techniques are improved by incorporating vegetation
into the structures.
• More recently, soils bioengineering techniques have been successfully utilized to solve bank
erosion and instability problems. These techniques generally attempt to imitate the natural
7
• streambank protection that has been lost or damaged through the use of plants as their main
structural component. They provide many ecological benefits to the stream, including cover,
shade, and soil improvements. These techniques often provide less intrusive, cost effective
solutions to bank stability problems encountered in the County.
In addition to improving bank conditions through vegetative means, aquatic habitat can be
restored through the installation of in-stream habitat improvement structures. Urban streams
often lack the diverse morphological features that are found in undisturbed streams.
Aquatic habitat improvement structures improve habitat conditions by replacing lost pool and
riffle sequences, forming gravel beds, concentrating streamflows, increasing the structural
complexity of streams, and increasing depth, asymmetric geometry, tree canopies to shade water.
Several general rules for the construction of in-stream devices are:
? Maximum effect on habitat should be achieved during low flow with negligible
effects during high flows.
? Locations of the structures should depend upon habitat requirements. In general,
pools form naturally at bends and riffles in straight sections.
? The created structures must never form a barrier to fish migration.
? One type of habitat should not be created at the expense of another. Installation
of structures should avoid deflecting flows into unprotected streambanks.
is The timing of construction of streambank stabilization and instream habitat improvement
projects is critical to their success. Cuttings can be installed only during dormant periods (late
fall to early spring). Native plant species are recommended for use in vegetative stabilization.
The use of bioengineering bank stabilization techniques may be limited by light requirements to
the selected plant species. In locations with an extensive riparian tree cover, sunlight may not
adequately penetrate the tree cover to allow plants to establish along the streambank.
Various in-stream habitat improvement features were analyzed for use in the project area.
Because of low stream gradient in project area, use of lowhead rock weir structures that provide
pool habitat, must be limited. There is only an elevational difference of about 2 feet between
downstream and upstream ends of the project; therefore, if more than two weirs were used, the
entire project area would be converted to pool habitat. In lieu of such weirs, it was determined
that wing defectors and flow constrictors would diversify flows, oxygenate waters, create scour
holes in the stream bottom, and establish a distinct low flow channel. In concert with the
deflectors and constrictors, boulder clusters can be used to further diversify habitat. All habitat
enhancement features will be bedded either on footer boulders or concrete slabs to prevent
subsidence into the sandy substrate which currently makes up the stream bottom.
Wetlands planted adjacent to the stream channel would have potential to improve water quality
in Little Sugar Creek by removing nitrate and other chemicals, reduce sediments from entering
the stream channel by filtering upland runoff, and provide habitat for fish and benthic organisms.
8
• Since the project area is a low gradient, featureless stream, distinct problems and opportunities
are present. Since the stream bottom is featureless, consisting of only one long sandy run, any
features that are added to diversify aquatic habitat will have positive benefits. The question
becomes one of determining when enough enhancement features have been added.
The low gradient of the stream, about 20 feet of vertical drop over 9,100 linear feet of stream
channel, and its sandy bottom substrate, present design challenges as many of the features
normally used in restoration activities, such as low-head weirs, cannot be used effectively. One
or two of these structures would convert the stream into a long continuous pool and not achieve
the objective of diversifying available habitats. Given these limiting conditions, flow restrictors
and deflectors, and boulder clusters, become the best available tools since they can define a low-
flow channel, create scour holes, and establish and maintain hard bottom substrates.
An integral part of any stream restoration plan should be the replanting of riparian tree cover. In
the project area, trees cannot be planted on channel slopes as they would reduce the hydraulic
efficiency of the channel, nor can they be planted at a density that would impair access for future
channel maintenance. Soft mast trees such as maples, ash and sycamore, and hard mast trees,
such as oaks, could be planted along the top of the bank. In addition to the mast provided, these
trees would replace much of the stream shading that was removed during project construction
and will improve the overall aesthetics of the project.
Upstream streambank stabilization would prevent the erosion and loss of valuable riparian
• habitat. This habitat provides valuable habitat for urban wildlife and is essential for maintaining
stream shading and moderating water temperatures for aquatic organisms. Under existing
conditions, erosion is chronic, and is causing habitat losses in both terrestrial and aquatic
systems. Erosion rates in the project area are not well defined, and tend to vary by location. In
addition, most erosion is episodic, occurring primarily during flood events. For the purposes of
analysis, a long-term average erosion rate of 0.10 ft/yr was assumed over the upstream
stabilization area's length. The riparian zone within this area was assumed to have an average
width of 20 feet. Given the 6,462-foot length of the proposed upstream stabilization area, it was
determined that approximately 5.9 acres of riparian habitat are present. This is currently being
lost at a rate of 0.59 acres every 10 years. Given a project effectiveness of 90 percent, which is
considered valid because the worst areas of erosion will be treated, this number drops to under a
tenth of an acre every 10 years (0.059 ac.). The results of this analysis are shown in table 2,
below. For comparison purposes, a maximum stabilization plan that would halt all erosion is
also displayed.
UPSTREAM LIMIT
The upstream limit of the instream habitat structures is set East Boulevard. Even though
significant aquatic habitat benefits could be gained by extending the project further upstream,
this point was identified by the non-Federal sponsor as the desired upstream limit of the project.
EVALUATION OF RESTORATION PLAN ALTERNATIVES
9
• And
PLAN SELECTION
The goals for plan selection are maximizing environmental output and minimization of cost.
Environmental output cannot be measured in monetary terms, and maximum net benefits for
various plans cannot be determined.
Various in-stream habitat improvement features were analyzed for use in the project area.
Because of low stream gradient in project area, use of lowhead rock weir structures that provide
pool habitat, must be limited. There is only an elevational difference of about 2 feet between
downstream and upstream ends of the project; therefore, if more than two weirs were used, the
entire project area would be converted to pool habitat. In lieu of such weirs, it was determined
that wing defectors and flow constrictors would diversify flows, oxygenate waters, create scour
holes in the stream bottom, and establish a distinct low flow channel. In concert with the
deflectors and constrictors, boulder clusters can be used to further diversify habitat. All habitat
enhancement features will be bedded either on footer boulders or concrete slabs to prevent
subsidence into the sandy substrate which currently makes up the stream bottom.
Wetlands planted adjacent to the stream channel would have potential to improve water quality
in Little Sugar Creek by removing nitrate and other chemicals, reduce sediments from entering
the stream channel by filtering upland runoff, and provide habitat for fish and benthic organisms.
• Since the project area is a low gradient, featureless stream, distinct problems and opportunities
are present. Since the stream bottom is featureless, consisting of only one long sandy run, any
features that are added to diversify aquatic habitat will have positive benefits. The question
becomes one of determining when enough enhancement features have been added.
The low gradient of the stream, about 20 feet of vertical drop over 9,100 linear feet of stream
channel, and its sandy bottom substrate, present design challenges as many of the features
normally used in restoration activities, such as low-head weirs, cannot be used effectively. One
or two of these structures would convert the stream into a long continuous pool and not achieve
the objective of diversifying available habitats. Given these limiting conditions, flow restrictors
and deflectors, and boulder clusters, become the best available tools since they can define a low-
flow channel, create scour holes, and establish and maintain hard bottom substrates.
An integral part of any stream restoration plan should be the replanting of riparian tree cover. In
the project area, trees cannot be planted on channel slopes as they would reduce the hydraulic
efficiency of the channel, nor can they be planted at a density that would impair access for future
channel maintenance. Soft mast trees such as maples, ash and sycamore, and hard mast trees,
such as oaks, could be planted along the top of the bank. In addition to the mast provided, these
trees would replace much of the stream shading that was removed during project construction
and will improve the overall aesthetics of the project.
• Upstream streambank stabilization would prevent the erosion and loss of valuable riparian
habitat. This habitat provides valuable habitat for urban wildlife and is essential for maintaining
10
• stream shading and moderating water temperatures for aquatic organisms. Under existing
conditions, erosion is chronic, and is causing habitat losses in both terrestrial and aquatic
systems. Erosion rates in the project area are not well defined, and tend to vary by location. In
addition, most erosion is episodic, occurring primarily during flood events. For the purposes of
analysis, a long-term average erosion rate of 0.10 ft/yr was assumed over the upstream
stabilization area's length. The riparian zone within this area was assumed to have an average
width of 20 feet. Given the 6,462-foot length of the proposed upstream stabilization area, it was
determined that approximately 5.9 acres of riparian habitat are present. This is currently being
lost at a rate of 0.59 acres every 10 years. Given a project effectiveness of 90 percent, which is
considered valid because the worst areas of erosion will be treated, this number drops to under a
tenth of an acre every 10 years (0.059 ac.). The results of this analysis are shown in table 2,
below. For comparison purposes, a maximum stabilization plan that would halt all erosion is
also displayed.
r?
TABLE 2. RIPARIAN HABITAT (IN ACRES) REMAINING OVER TIME UNDER
VARIOUS STABILIZATION OPTIONS.
MEASURE YEAR 0 YEAR 10 YEAR 30 YEAR 50
Maximum Stabilization 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Recommended Plan 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6
No Upstream Stabilization 5.9 5.3 4.1 2.9
From table 2, it can be seen that there is little difference between a maximum stabilization plan,
where all of the streambanks are riprapped and the recommended plan that only treats the worst
areas with bioengineering methods or riprap. It can also be observed that almost half of the
riparian habitat within the project area would be lost over the 50-year project life if no action
istaken. This is visually displayed in figure 1, below.
FIGURE 1. RIPARIAN HABITAT OVER THE 50-YEAR PROJECT LIFE
(IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN)
Year 50
Year 30
Year 10
Year 0
pNo Action
¦Rec Plan
®Max Stab
• Land lost from erosion equates to sedimentation, which will also degrade downstream fish
habitat. This would offset many of the benefits to be gained by placing fishery enhancement
11
• structures in the stream. While a maximum stabilization plan would stop the downstream
sedimentation completely, the additional increment of sedimentation to be stopped does not
warrant the additional expense. For this reason, a plan which stabilizes only the worst areas of
erosion is most appropriate.
SECTION IV SELECTED PLAN FOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
DESCRIPTION
There are three components to the recommended plan: placement of five fishery enhancement
structures, streambank stabilization, and riparian tree plantings in and adjacent to Little Sugar
Creek from Tyvola Road to East Boulevard. The project area consists of approximately 3.2
miles of stream channel and adjacent riparian habitat.
Fish structures will be J-Hook vanes projecting into the stream at an upstream angle of 24
degrees, placed either staggered or directly opposite each other to diversify flows through
deflection or creation of scoured areas. These will be used in conjunction with boulder clusters
which will be bedded either on footer boulders or concrete slabs. Siting criteria were established
with the objective of evenly distributing enhancement features (habitat diversity) over the length
• of the project and promoting mixing in the water column. Since the project reach is fairly
uniform, ultimate site selection was made based on tributary stream locations, locations of bends
in the stream, and spacing between structures. Locations and types of structures being proposed
can be seen in Appendix B.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Project Construction Considerations
Construction of the improvements recommended for Little Sugar Creek will require work in the
stream, as well as along the top of banks, primarily due to limited access. Diversion cofferdams
for limited, temporary dewatering of active instream work areas and for additional sediment and
erosion control may be utilized on a case-by-case basis. Appropriate construction equipment will
be recommended to minimize disturbance to streambed and adjacent areas. Although it is
recognized that these construction considerations will impose some short-term stream habitat
degradation, the long-term benefits from the project will far outweigh these temporary impacts.
All excavated material must be disposed of in an approved disposal area located outside the
project limits and furnished by the local sponsor.
The timing of construction of stream bank stabilization and instream habitat improvement
40 projects is critical to their success. Cuttings can be installed only during dormant periods (late
fall to early spring).
12
• Construction access easements will be needed for project implementation. Several tentative
points have been identified for consideration. These are shown on the plates in Appendix B.
A temporary access ramp to the streambed will be required at each access point since high banks
and mature tree preservation will necessitate construction from both top of banks and the creek
bed.
Sediment and Erosion Control Measures
Applicable measures described in the Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual for the State of North Carolina will be incorporated in the final plans and specifications.
These measures will include but are not limited to establishing permanent and temporary
vegetation, installing erosion control fabric on slopes, stabilizing temporary construction
entrances, temporary stream crossings, temporary sediment basins, and temporary check dams.
Structures and Utility Crossings
Four manmade structures cross Little Sugar Creek within the upstream reach of the proposed
project limits. Roadway bridge crossings exist at Brandywine Avenue, Hillside Avenue,
Princeton Avenue, and East Boulevard. Numerous utilities that will be in the zone of
• construction activities also cross the creek throughout the length of the project. These include
water lines, gas lines, and sanitary sewer lines. Gas and water lines cross the creek at roadway
bridges and are attached to the bridges. Most of the utilities cross over the creek. Although the
bank stabilization activities will not require adjustments or relocation of these utilities,
coordination will be required with the owning agencies to ensure that no conflicts develop. The
location of known utility crossings are shown on the plans.
Project Easements
The requirements for lands, easements, and rights-of-way (LERRD's) include the rights for
temporary access, temporary construction, and permanent maintenance. Rights-of-way needed
for the project will overlie existing easements for storm drainage maintenance and for other
utility maintenance. Further explanation of the real estate analysis in included in Appendix A
(which will be provided under separate cover).
Right-of-way limits for the proposed action will generally extend 25 feet beyond the existing top
of bank or slope intercept point in graded areas for the working bank and 10 feet on the non-
working bank. Right-of-way will be used for project construction and maintenance access and
for any landscaping measures. The working bank will be the primary bank for construction and
access to the stream. The working bank will be cleared where necessary for construction access
and once all construction is completed will be replanted. This calculates to be approximately ?
acres of perpetual easement needed for the proposed action. The temporary work area easement
will be an additional 15 feet in width in various areas of the project. There is approximately ?
13
• acres of temporary work area easement, this area includes the three proposed staging areas that
will be located along the project area. Access for construction is limited to areas near existing
public roads. It is the responsibility of Mecklenburg County (the non-Federal project sponsor) to
acquire the necessary real estate interest for the project as well as any maintenance needed in the
future. All real estate will be acquired by project sponsor through temporary and perpetual
channel improvement easements.
OUTPUT
•
E
The proposed restoration project should significantly increase the variety and improve the
stability of the aquatic habitat available in the fisheries enhancement project area. Table 3 below
gives project acreages of habitats available in the project area before and after the restoration.
TABLE 3. AVAILABLE HABITAT TYPES (IN ACRES) BEFORE AND AFTER THE
RESTORATION PROJECT.
HABITAT EXISTING WITH PROJECT CHANGE +/-
Riffle 0.0 0.50 +0.50
Run 3.75 2.50 -1.25
Pool 0.45 1.20 +0.75
Totals 4.2 4.2
* Assumes U.15 acre of pool habitat and 0.10 acre of riffle habitat created per structure.
a. Benthic resources in the fisheries enhancement project area are extremely limited. This relates
primarily to the large sediment load currently being carried by the stream, with massive
redistributions of bottom sediments occurring after each floodflow event. In such an unstable
environment, only the hardiest benthic organisms can survive. With upstream bank stabilization,
the sediment load transported through the project area should be reduced, allowing a more stable
environment to evolve. Benthic organisms in the project area are also limited by a lack of hard
structure attachment surfaces. Currently, within the project reach, none exists except that offered
by bridge pilings. The fisheries enhancement project will provide many new attachment surfaces
and benthic production and diversity should both increase.
Baseline benthic data collected by Mecklenburg County on August 24, 1996, from the rock
rapids at and below Archdale Road indicate a fairly low species diversity. The most common
present were caddisflies and mayflies. Also occurring were riffle beetles, black flies dobsonflies
and damselflies. As mentioned above, after project construction, these and additional species
will likely inhabit the newly placed fishery enhancement structures, increasing both diversity and
production in the project area.
14
• b. Reduction in sediment input from eroding streambanks. Streambank erosion is a
substantial problem in Little Sugar Creek and it is significantly degrading the aquatic
environment; therefore, any aquatic ecosystem restoration improvement project must address this
problem if it is to be effective. Controlling streambank erosion will have positive benefits to the
aquatic environment and its riparian areas by reducing burial of aquatic habitat and cutting the
loss of riparian trees.
c. Improvement of aesthetics in an urbanized environment. Degraded streams are
typically unattractive landscape features and the Little Sugar Creek project area is no exception.
The project will improve the aesthetics of the project area by diversifying the appearance of the
stream and through plantings of trees in riparian and adjacent floodplain areas. In order to
maximize this benefit, native trees will be incorporated into the project's landscape.
COSTS
Costs are principally derived from delivering and placing instream habitat enhancements,
removal of the inoperable stream hydraulic control structure that is about 450 feet north of
Princeton Avenue, and bank stabilization. Other costs are grading, planting bank vegetation, and
real estate. The estimated total costs of the selected plan are $2,115,000 including feasibility
study cgst ost?,f om the,MCACES es#mate_.am summarized in t0le,4.,; Additional, details are
in Appendix C.
is
E
15
•
TABLE 4
Total Project Cost Summary
Little Sugar Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Section 206
•
Cost
Acct
Description Cost
Estimate
Contingency
Total
22 Feasibility Study 140,000 0 140,000
Total -Feasibility Phase 140,000 0 140,000
01 Federal Real Estate Costs 20,000 5,000 25,000
30 Plans & Specifications 125,000 35,000 160,000
Total - Plans & Specifications Phase 145,000 40,000 185,000
01 Lands & Damages - Non Federal' 160,000 40,000 200,000
06 Construction Contract
- Wildlife Facilities and Sanctuaries 1060,000 264,000 1324,000
30 O&M Manual 20,000 5,000 25,000
30 Engineering and Design During
Construction 25,000 5,000 30,000
31 Construction Management 60,000 15,000 75,000
31 Project Coordination Team -Federal 10,000 3,000 13,000
31 Project Coordination Team Non-Federal' 10,000 3,000 13,000
31 Project Monitoring Non-Federal' 40,000 10,000 50,000
31 Public Involvement Non-Federal' 8,000 2,000 10,000
31 Programs Management 40,000 10,000 50,000
Total Construction Phase 1,433,000 357,000 1,796,000
' The real estate estimates by Al Bjorkquist based on Section 1135 project real estate costs and personal judgement.
• 2 These items qualify for credit as inkind services.
16
• Total Project Cost - Habitat Restoration 1,718,000 $397,000 $2,115,000
POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Maintenance
Maintenance will consist of inspecting and repairing habitat and bank protection features,
especially after floods. The CMSWS will maintain all vegetation plantings, including watering,
pruning, or replacement, as necessary. The CMSWS also has equipment for repairing banks
where erosion occurs.
Another maintenance responsibility includes excavating, as necessary, material from the two
sediment traps. The cost of these maintenance responsibilities is estimated at $10,000 per year
including materials, equipment, and labor.
Monitoring
The Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection monitors species diversity
and abundance of fishes and benthos in most of the county's streams. The CMSWS will
coordinate with this agency to do monitoring of fish and benthic organism populations in the
stream before construction and for the 3 years following completion of the project. Results of
this monitoring will be provided to all concerned agencies.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Temporary environmental impacts associated with the restoration project are turbidity and noise.
The Environmental Assessment follows the main section of this report.
SECTION V - DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITY
COST SHARING
•
The Federal government and the non-Federal sponsor will share costs for project construction.
Under current Federal policy applicable to Section 206 aquatic ecosystem restoration projects,
the non-Federal sponsor must contribute a minimum of 35 percent of the project first costs. The
non-Federal contribution must include: (1) all lands, easements, rights of way, relocations, and
disposal areas; (LERRD)and if the value of required LERRD provided by the sponsor exceeds its
share of the total project the Government shall reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for the excess
amount.(2) a minimum cash contribution' of ? percent of project first costs. In addition, the non-
Federal sponsor will get credit toward their share for in-kind services that the sponsor provides.
' A percentage cash contribution is apparently not required as is the case with other continuing authorities projects.
17
. Estimated dollar amounts for in-kind services are shown on table 5 on page 18. To comply with
current Federal policy of a minimum 35 percent requirement totaling $740,000, the non-Federal
cash contribution is increased to $467,000 or 22 percent of the project first costs. The above-
required contributions total $740,000 or 35 percent of the project first costs. Cost sharing for the
Selected Plan is shown in table 5 below. Additional requirements of non-Federal sponsorship are
included in the District Engineer's "Recommendations".
TABLE 5
Cost Sharing, Selected Plan
Non-Federal Share of First Costs
Lands, Easements, and Rights of Way ...........................$ 200,000
In Kind Services ............................................................. $ 73,000
Cash Contribution ........................................................... $ 467,000
C.
TotalNon-Federal-Sham,of Fi;St Costs. ,.........,.... , ..,,. .. ....... $740,000
Federal Share of First Costs .................................................................................. $1,375,000
Total Project Costs .............................................................................................. $2,115,000
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is the potential project sponsor and will provide funds, as
appropriate, for the non-Federal share of project costs
SECTION VI - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
•
The aquatic ecosystem restoration project, as proposed, complies with Section 206 policy, has
beneficial ecosystem output, and is environmentally acceptable. Accordingly, Federal
implementation of these improvements is recommended.
18
• RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that the Selected Plan, described herein for purposes of aquatic ecosystem restoration
along Little Sugar Creek in the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, be authorized for implementation
as a Federal project, with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be
advisable, at a first cost presently estimated at $2,115,000. The recommended plan provides
restoration of aquatic habitat from Tyvola Drive upstream to East Avenue. Restoration features
include installation of rock weirs, boulder clusters, and streambank vegetation. To prevent
sedimentation of restored habitat, sedimentation reduction features localized bank stabilization is
included from Brandywine Road to East Boulevard.
Recommendation of this plan is made provided that, except as otherwise provided in these
recommendations, the exact amount of non-Federal contributions shall be determined by the
Chief of Engineers prior to project implementation in accordance with the following requirements
to which non-Federal interests must agree prior to implementation:
a. Provide all lands, easements, and rights of way, including suitable disposal areas as may be
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be necessary for construction and subsequent maintenance
and inspection of the project.
b. Accomplish without cost to the United States all relocations and alterations of buildings,
transportation facilities, and other structures and improvements made necessary by the construction.
• c. Provide, during the process ofconstruction, an amount equal to 35 percent of total project
costs. The amount to be provided shall include the value or cost of all lands, easements, rights of
way, and facility and utility alterations and relocations necessary for construction and subsequent
maintenance of the project, including suitable excavated material disposal areas, (LERRD) as may
be determined by the Chief of Engineers. If the value of the above required LERRD provided by
the non-Federal sponsor exceeds its share of the total project costs, the Government shall reimburse
the non-Federal sponsor for the excess amount.
d. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to project construction and
subsequent maintenance, except damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its
contractors.
e. Maintain and operate the project after completion without cost to the United States in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.
f. Assume full responsibility for all project costs in excess of the Federal cost limitation of
$5,000,000.
g. Assume financial responsibility for cleanup of hazardous and toxic waste, as defined in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which is necessitated
• by the project. Such costs will not be considered part of the total project costs, nor will the sponsor
receive credit for such costs it incurs.
19
•
0
•
h. Fulfill the requirements of non-Federal cooperation as specified in the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (PL 91-646).
The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at this time and current
departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. They do not reflect program
and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works construction program
nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch. Consequently, the
recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to higher authority as proposals for
authorization and implementation funding.
In making the recommendations herein, I have considered all significant aspects in the overall
public interest, including environmental, social, cultural, and economic effects and engineering
feasibility. No significant environmental impacts will result from implementation of the
recommended plan.
James W.,Delony , ,
Colonel, U.S. Army
Date: District Engineer
20
•
PLATE 1
•

21
r
•
a-
1/6 STA.!+30 LITTLE SUGAR CREEI
BEGIN FISHERY ENHANCEMENT Al
AQUATIC RESTORATION PROJECT
o°
Ox

II rl Q ]
0 I 2Lo?? 1`0!?
}00 ? / ?/?? °r ?0 ?I o
0 ?
40 r
6?4. \ y0x
C
</y
° t/6 S
01n??r
re

8
T4
S? Hill -
ii
. ?--' NnsvilM $1
J? 6
n ?
?VU Ur J I nCHMDN"- J NUILILH I iuw
AND AQUATIC RESTORATION PROJECT
RIGHT OF WAY
CqR TOP WARP LIMITS (VA
a RIES) \
ROOTED PLANT SEE NOTE ? cob
b, C
CONCRETE DAM
-------------------- STA 79+37.61 LITTLE SUGAR CREOk STRUCTURE W/
BEGIN STREAMBANK STABILIZATION U
LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS - - ° (TO BE REMOVE)
EXISTING FAILED FREEDOM PART( /
4EOTEXTLE WRAP STREAMBANK //
COMPACTED
E R BACKFILL
CA
u E]NF NFOROENENi Il
REINFORCEMENT
0
STOW-/SOIL MX
50/50 BLEND )
____ -- CLASS 9' /
STONE
BANK SLOUGHING REPAIR x°o
NOT TO SCALE O ,ti0
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 103+15 -107+00
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.B4+00 - 116+00 (WEST BANK)
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 121+30 - 125+05 (WEST BANK)
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 122+70 - 126+80 (EAST BANK)
RIGHT OF WAY D' 25 RIGHT OF WAY i OTHER TYPICAL FISHERY ENHANCEMENT
SPE NOT LIMITS (VARIES) . fkY STRUCTURES (NOT SHOWN) INCLUDES
25 LIMITS (VARIES) RS])N CROSS VANE. ROCK VANE, ROCK WEIR,
E NOT EROSION S(opR G AND AND STREAM DEFLECTORS
CONTROL 4 t F
EROSION CONTROL FABRIC `EXISTING / ARMS / TOE OF SLOPE
FABRIC (TYPICAL) EXISTING LIVE GROUND 20-30'
GROUND STAKING
(TYP.) PLANT SPACING BASED Q ?B4 '/Sl/
NG r 3
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MAT. PER ON TYPE OF VEGETATION ;,oe aF 2? Lq(0 F?
Q
MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS ON AND SITE CONDITIONS S
EXISTING SLOPES WITH LIVE STAKING. BASE FLOW
BOULDER (. ay p1K f?O?
JOINT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLACE -------- ?p? CLUSTERS
BETWEEN RIPRAP STONE . COCONUT FOOTERNOTES: (TYP.).
a FIBER ROLL ROCK 0p' "
A 4, L ROCKS IN VANE ARE
RIPRAP TYPICAL Qa NOT SPACED.
W;JOINT PLANTINGS EROSION CONTROL FABRIC W/LIVE STAKING 2. ROCKS IN 'J'SECTION ARE
GEOTEXTILE NOT TO SCALE SPACED I/2 ROCK WIDTH.
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.80+25 - 89+10 (EAST BANK) 3.STRUCTURE SPANS I/2 TO
RIPRAP AND EROSION CONTROL FABRIC LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA 92+20 - 96+98 2/3 OF STREAM WIDTH
NOT TO SCALE LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.98N8 - 100+60 TYPICAL V HOOK VANE BOULDER CLUSTERS
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 86+00 88+80 (WEST BANK) LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 107+00 - 14+00 (WEST BANK) NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 107+00 - 122+00 (EAST BANK;
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 96+98 - 98+48 (WEST BANK) LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STa.116+00 - 120+30 (WEST BANK) LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.t+30 - 170+40 LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA.1+30 - 170+40
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 96+98 - 98+48 (EAST BANK)
TYPICAL STREAMBANK STABILIZTION SECTIONS TYPICAL FISHERY ENHANCEMENT PLAN VIEWS

2K"I
UIT OF CHARLOTTE
MFCIOFMORO COWTY, N.C.
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
wo o t0 sc coo
0011E AT FEM
U.B. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
EERS
CORPS OF ENGIN
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAA)UNA
---- -
oi es I

0 DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED
SECTION 206 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT,
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK, CITY OF CHARLOTTE
- Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington.
ABSTRACT: Little Sugar Creek has its headwaters within the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina. Its watershed is highly urbanized, and the large amount of impervious surface, non-
point runoff, and construction activity has led to severe degradation of the stream and its
associated natural communities. The proposed action, discussed in this report would restore
many of the habitat values which were eliminated by the past channelization work within the
project area through placement of fishery enhancement structures, riparian tree plantings,
• wetland creation, and removal of structures on Little Sugar Creek from Tyvola Road to East
Boulevard and streambank stabilization on Little Sugar Creek from Brandywine Road to East
-- Boulevard The proposed action is located upstream of the Section I I35/Federal flood control
project.
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER AT THE ADDRESS BELOW.
For further information concerning this statement, please contact: Mr. Hugh Heine,
Environmental Resources Section, at the address below, by telephone at [phone], or by
e-mail at h heineCa??saw02.usace.armymil.
DI3MCT ENGME'
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
P.O. Boa 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890-.
E
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT PAGE NO.
1.00 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................EA-4
1.01 Background ....................................................................................................EA-4
1.02 Authority ........................................................................................................EA-4
1.03 Partners ........................................................................................................EA-6
1.04 Internet Information .......................................................................................EA-6
1.05 Relationship of Plan to Environmental Requirements ................................... EA-6
2.00 EXISTING CONDITIONS .....................................................................................EA-8
2.01 Flood Control Project Area ............................................................................EA-8
2.02 Upstream of The Flood Control Project ........................................................EA-9
2.02.1 Past Channel Modifications ............................................................EA-9
2.02.2 Upstream Reach - Specific Observations .......................................EA-10
3.00 ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................EA-13
.. .. .`.ei. •?lf? 1 `.li??. ?f ..? „ ?;i+i-... ;(1• ... c: i, iIYE;v.-'cl?r ii) ai:(i...'i)h?:
3.01 Goals -of the Project .......................................................................................EA-13
3.02 Approaches to a Solution ...............................................................................EA-14
3.03 Alterative 1- Recommended ......................................................................EA-17
3.04 Alternative 2 - No Upstream. Stabilization ....................................................EA-19
3.05 Alternative 3 - No Action ..............................................................................EA-19
4.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................
................. EA-19
4.01 Vegetation and Wildlife .................................................................................EA-19
4.02 Fishes ........................................................................................................EA-20
4.03 Benthos ........................................................................................................EA-22
4.04 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................EA-23
4.05 Water Quality .................................................................................................EA-23
4.06 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................EA-23
4.07 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radianactive Wastes................... ................ ............ EA-23
4.08 Prime or Unique Farmland ............................................................................EA-23
4.09 Wetlands ........................................................................................................EA-24
4.10 Air Quality ........................... EA-24
..........................................................................
4.11. Aestheticsy ............................. .....................................__.._............_..- ......-EA24
4.12 Other Significant Resources ..........................................................................EA-25
4.13 Executive Orders ............................................................................................EA 25
5.00 MITIGATION ............................................................................... .... .EA-26
•
EA-2
• TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
SUBJECT PAGE NO.
6.00 COORDINATION ..................................................................................................EA-27
6.01 Scoping ........................................................................................................ EA-27
6.02 List of Recipients ...........................................................................................EA-27
6.03 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ..............................................................EA-29
7.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ...............................................................EA-29
8.00 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................... EA-30
.....................................
9.00 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...........................................EA-30
10.00 REFERENCES .................................
................................................... EA-31
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO PAGE NO.
1 Relationship of Proposed Action to Environmental Requirements ............ EA-7
................
2 Riparian Habitat (in acres) Remaining Over Time Under Various
Stabilization Options ..............................................................................EA-17
3 Available Habitat Types (in acres) Before and After the Restoration
Project ..................................................................................................... EA-22
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO
PAGE NO.
1 Project Area ..._... ............................. __..?..?..,_...._..._._...._ _..........EA-5
2 Hydraulic Control Structure (foreground) and ..........................................EA-13
Princeton Avenue Bridge (background)
3 Riparian Habitat Over the 50-Year Project Life (if no action is taken) ...... EA-17
LIST OF APPENDIXES PAGE NO.
APPENDIX A - SECTION 404 (bxl) EVALUATION .................................................EA-Al
EA-3
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED
SECTION 206 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT,
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK, CITY OF CHARLOTTE
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
1.00 Introduction
1.01 Background. Little Sugar Creek (Figure 1) has its headwaters within. the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina Its watershed is highly urbanized, and the large amount of impervious
surface, non point runoff, and construction activity has led to severe degradation of the stream
and its associated natural communities. In 1978, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed
a flood control project on the creek between its confluence with Briar Creek downstream to
Archdale Road. This project consisted of constructing a trapezoidal channel, designed to
promote rapid passage of floodflows through improved hydrologic efficiency of the stream
channel. When that project was constructed, it included no environmental features and thus
contributed to the further decline of the aquatic resource values of the stream. The Section 1135
project and Federal flood control project, discussed in an earlier report (USACE 1999), is located
4ownstream of the proposed -Seetionr206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration project.
. The aquatic habitat and streambanks of Little Sugar Creek within the 3.2 mile project area are in
a state of disequilibrium caused by changes in hydrology resulting from the large quantity of
impervious surface that now exists in this watershed. Runoff into the creek now occurs much
more quickly than would occur in a largely forested watershed, and the water levels in the creek
respond by quickly rising and falling with each storm event. This increased frequency of erosive
flow conditions is causing the streambanks to fail at many locations. With each bank failure,
sediment is introduced to the stream which further degrades the aquatic environment.
The Corps has been involved with studying flood problems in Charlotte, North Carolina, for
many years. Most recently, the Corps studied the proposed Little Sugar Creek Habitat
Restoration (Section 1135) project (USACE 1999). The Corps also studied Little Sugar Creek,
along with Sugar Creek, Briar Creek, Irwin Creek, McMullen Creek, and McAlpine Creek and
issued a Reevaluation Report in 1991. The planning which occurred for both reports involved
many agencies and has provided a clear picture of the resource base that is present within the
current study area. Pertinent information from these efforts were used in the preparation of this
report.
1.02 Autho ' . The proposed action is being undertaken under the authority of Section 206 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as amended This legislation provides authority
to carry out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects that will improve the quality of
the environment, are in the public interest, and are cost-effective.
•
EA-4
?J
•
•
FIGURE I
i Li mni, l .1.<. ?.1: , It :IL ._i.,, ? ..'1? . ..„, •.I. t;yr i:i.
EA-5
• 1.03 Partners. The proposed project is being sponsored by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm
Water Services (CMSWS). It has been jointly planned with the sponsor and with the
involvement of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1.04 Internet Information. The Internet web site for CMSWS includes hydrologic information
for the area and information on other projects that they are pursuing in the greater metropolitan
area. It is highly recommended for readers desiring additional information about storm
conditions of the study area. It can be found at hU://www.charmeck.nc.us/cistorm.
The Mecklenburg County State of the Environment Report -1997 is also available on the
Internet. It includes baseline information about the conditions of the land, air, and water
resources of the county. This report can be found at h=://www.co.meckIMbur?.nc.us/coenv/
soer97/soer97 title R e.htm.
1.05 Relationship of Plan to Environmental Protection Statutes and Other Environmental
Requirements. The relationship of the proposed environmental restoration project to
environmental protection statutes and other environmental requirements is presented in table 1.
Compliance-with all applicable Federal, State,. andlocal policies has been examined
•
is
EA-6
• TABLE 1. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ACTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.
Federal Laws and Policies Proposed Action
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 N/A
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended Full Compliance
Clean Air Act, as amended Full Compliance
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended N/A
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 N/A
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended Full Compliance
Estuary Protection Act of 1968 N/A
Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1968, as amended N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended Full Compliance
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 Full Compliance
Hazardous and Toxic Materials Issues Full Compliance
Land and Water Conservation Act of 1964, as amended Full Compliance
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended N/A
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended Full Compliance
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended Full Compliance
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended Full Compliance
River and Harbor Act of 1970, Public Law 91-611, Section 122 Full Compliance
Submerged Lands Act of 1953, as amended , N/A-.-
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Section 906 Full Compliance
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended Full Compliance
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended Not Applicable
Executive Orders (EO). Memoranda etc.
EO 11988, Flood Plain Management Full Compliance
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands Full Compliance
EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment Full Compliance
EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Full Compliance '
Minority and Low-Income Populations
CEQ Guidance on Prime and Unique Farmlands Full Compliance
State Law and Local Policies
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) of 1974 N/A
Mecklenburg County Land Use Plan Full Compliance
Note: Full compliance is defined as having met all the requirements ofthe statute, Executive Order, or other
environmental requirement for the current stage of project planning.
•
EA-7
• 2.00 Existing Conditions
2.01 Project Area. Historically, Little Sugar Creek had a variety of aquatic habitats available
including riffles, runs, and pools. These habitats had within them other structural features which
provided refuge and/or feeding habitat for fishes including undercut banks, overhanging shrubs,
and snags. The streambanks were, for the most part, forested, which provided stream shading
and input of leaves and other vegetative material. Because of these features, the stream
supported a diverse freshwater fishery that was probably limited only by water quality and
sedimentation.
Concurrent with the growth of the Charlotte area came a need for flood control within the Little
Sugar Creek basin. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked closely with Mecklenburg
County to develop a cost-effective solution to the flooding problem, resulting in a flood control
project on Little Sugar Creek from Archdale Drive upstream to the confluence with Briar Creek,
a distance of 0.78 miles. The constructed project was a trapezoidal channel with a 50-foot
bottom width. This project removed essentially all streambank vegetation in the project area and,
through grade improvements, removed most of the aquatic habitat diversity which had been
present This existing flood control project is located downstream of the proposed Section 206
action.
. . - , .,I,? -Ic.. , - i+ "? ;.I,' Jla.t: t .. 3:, ..(, ki.-?1_ _ .,7.
The proposed Little Sugar Creek Section 206 project is 3.2 mile long and extends from Tyvola
Road to East Boulevard. The stream channel had been earlier straightened and the stream banks
• stabilized with concrete and grouted nprap. Additionally, a stream hydraulic control structure
-- was constructed on Little Sugar Creek approximately 450 feet north of Princeton Avenue.
Today the streambanks in this project area are vegetated with woody shrubs and grasses and the
stream bottom is a long, unstable, continuous sandy run offering little or no habitat structure.
While no before and after studies were conducted for Little Sugar Creek, studies performed in
other areas show great declines in abundance of some species can occur following stream
channelization. Reduced habitat diversity is generally believed to be the primary cause of
declines in aquatic communities and fisheries. In the absence of maintenance, the vegetation
along channelized streams will eventually recover, however, recovery periods are expected to be
lengthy. Given the periodic maintenance for flood control purposes that Mecklenburg County
undertakes in the project area, vegetation recovery is not anticipated.
Upstream streambank erosion and development will continue to provide sediment sources which
will effectively limit natural recovery of the aquatic system. The channelization of Little Sugar
Creek within the project area has exacerbated existing erosive flow conditions upstream of the
project by altering the hydrologic gradient of the area. The exact limit of such affects is unclear.
As mentioned is section 1.01, erosive flow conditions occur throughout the Little Sugar Creek
watershed above the project and are responsible for the input of large quantities of sediment into
the stream following each storm event As a result, the diversity of the aquatic community has
declined.
EA-8
• 2.02 Project Area.
2.02.1 Past Channel Modifications. Research of maps, property records, and record aerial
photography showed that channel straightening occurred in portions of Little Sugar Creek
beginning in 1911. Although specific details about the work were not found, it was performed to
promote drainage, control malaria, and increase agricultural production. More recently, as
development has occurred and continues to occur in the area, sporadic channel and streambank
projects have been completed. North of Brandywine Road, nprap has been installed
intermittently on the east and west banks, particularly in the area just north of Brandywine Road
adjacent to the Park Road Shopping Center. These intermittently armored slopes are covered
with viney growth that, in some cases, obscures the riprap except at the water's edge.
An inoperable steam hydraulic control structure (Figure 2) is located on Little Sugar Creek
approximately 450 feet north of Princeton Avenue. This structure. consists of a 3-cell radial gate
system for low flow control. The two eastern most gates are fixed in a position of approximately
2/3 open and the western gate is closed. The radial gates are encased or covered by a concrete
slab that acts as a broad crested weir during larger storm events when the structure is overtopped.
The top of the weir is several feet below the top of bank. Channel banks immediately up and
downstream of the structure are concrete lined but have experienced significant undermining and,
in some cases, embankment failure. Large chunks of broken concrete are present in and around
the stream channel. .1
The City of Charlotte is preparing to construct a large storm drainage improvement project
referred to as the Princeton Avenue/Queens Road West Storm Drainage Improvements that will
affect this area. This improvement project consists of storm drainage system repair and
replacement along Princeton Road and in the Myers Park/Queens Road West area on the east
side of Little Sugar Creek. The plans call for the installation of a new 72-inch storm sewer
outfall into Little Sugar Creek on the east side and upstream of the Princeton Avenue Bridge.
Field reconnaissance of the area was conducted during periods of base flow to investigate site
conditions and collect information for the purpose of determining where streambank stabilization
is necessary and what types of protective measures would be most appropriate. Bank erosion
was observed to be present throughout the area, particularly at abrupt transitions (e.g., sharp
bends, bridges). Although no potentially catastrophic property or life-threatening bank failures
were observed, loss of property due to bank sloughing was-observed to be an'ongoing problem.
For the most part, erosion at the toe of slopes was the primary mechanism of bank failure. This
condition is generally caused by the increased erosive forces arising from more frequent and
- larger magnitude s etdai ows expenend&dm an urban waters ems: --Me bank sods are more
susceptible to failure because of these increased forces. Uncontrolled, concentrated runoff from
the overbanks and poorly constructed storm drainage outfalls also contribute to the observed
erosion conditions.
• Generally, the vegetative cover and canopy along the streambanks were observed to be fair for a
stream m an urban environment. Vegetative bank cover observed was typically viney material
EA-9
• and other shallow rooted plants that provide limited erosion protection. There are some reaches
with stands of mature trees on the upper banks that provide good stream canopy, primarily in the
areas of single-family residential land use.
On July 23, 1997, Little Sugar Creek experienced a major storm event, estimated to be in excess
of the 100-year event Post-flood event reconnaissance showed significant additional erosion in
expected locations, although no major failures occurred. In addition, the floodflows flattened the
vegetative cover, exposing areas of steep, marginally stable banks.
2.02.2 Upstream Reach-Specific Observations. For discussion purposes, the upstream study
area has been broken down into identifiable reaches or segments. These reaches, in order from
downstream end to upstream end, are as follows:
1. Tyvola Road (confluence with Briar Creek) to Park Road (1900 LF)
2. Park Road to Woodlawn Road (5300 LF)
3. Woodlawn Road to Brandywine Road (800 LF)
4. Brandywine Road to Hillside Avenue (2200 LF)
5. Hillside Avenue to Freedom Park (Princeton Avenue) (3400 LF)
6. Freedom Park (Princeton Avenue) to East Boulevard (3500 LF)

A brief description of the observed bank stability conditions for each of these segments is
contained in the paragraphs below.
is 1 T ola Road to Park Road:
The lower half of this reach has steep, high banks and shows signs of toe of bank erosion, bank
sloughing, and failure. In the upper half of the reach, the stream has been stabilized with gabions
on both the east and west banks. The gabions extend downstream on the west bank
approximately 800 feet from the Park Road bridge around the bend in the stream. At the bend, a
segment of gabions, approximately 100 feet in length, recently failed at the toe and fell into the
stream; however, the failure has been repaired by Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services
maintenance personnel. On the east bank, the gabions extend downstream approximately 500
feet from the Park Road bridge and end just short of the bend in the creek. There is visible
evidence that the stream is beginning to erode the bank at the toe of the gabions.
Viney growth on the channel banks, when present, provides some limited bank erosion
protection; however, bare ground is visible in a number of locations along the reach. Vegetative
cover in the upper portion of this reach is minimal due to the presence of the gabions; however,
vney growth has infiltrated the gabions. _
(2) Park Road to Woodlawn Road:
This reach is characterized by steep, high banks on both sides of the stream with numerous rock
outcroppings, and loose boulders in and around the stream banks. Toe of bank erosion and bank
sloughing is primarily occurring along the less developed east bank in isolated areas, particularly
EA-1o
in and adjacent to bends in the stream. Bank erosion on the west bank appears to be primarily the
result of inadequate handling of surface water and storm drain outfalls into the stream.
Concentrated runoff is allowed to flow down the banks or outfall onto slopes without proper
energy dissipation measures.
In several areas, the surface water runoff from adjacent parking lots has eroded the top of slope
and resulted in failure of the concrete flumes, pavement, and/or storm drain headwalls. In
general, all of the storm drain outfalls and flumes from commercial and residential development
along this reach show signs of failure to some degree. Bank repairs in the form of rip rap slope
protection have occurred in the reach in the recent past. Two areas. in particular are: (1) along the
west bank just north of the Park Road bridge abutting the parking lot for the apartments on Villa
Hermosa Drive, and (2) along the east bank abutting the parking lot for the apartments on
Wakefield Drive.
Vegetative bank cover was present throughout the entire reach; however, it was predominantly
viney growth material On the east bank, stands of large trees on residential lots provide some
measure of stream canopy, while the western bank has only limited canopy due to commercial
development encroachment to the top of bank.
(3)......:.. Woodlawn Road.ta,BrandywineRRoad: ., ._ a, ,?.. .
This short reach is characterized by generally steep, high banks on both the east and west banks.
• Several rock outcroppings appear on the east bank and, in general, this reach is experiencing
- scour and erosion only in isolated areas. Isolated areas of toe of bank erosion and areas of bank
sloughing are primarily confined to the east bank. These areas of erosion are generally found up
and/or downstream of rock outcroppings. The sharp bend (70 degree) in the stream at the face of
the box culvert under Woodlawn Road appears to be causing some scour and erosion behind the
wing walls of the culvert.
Vegetative cover exists on both banks, although it is typically viney material. The vegetative
canopy is limited due to the proximity of roadway development along the top of west bank.
Low-density residential development along the east bank provides some measure of tree canopy.
(4) Brandywine Road to Hillside Avenue:
This reach is characterized by banks of varied height and slope. The lower half of this reach has
steep, high banks while the upper section has considerably lower bank heights. In general, the
west bank is significantly higher than the east bank in the lower half of the reach, while in the
upper half, the-banks are approximately the same height.
The majority of streambank and toe of slope erosion occurs on the east bank and at the
various storm drain outfalls located along the reach. The west bank, in the lower half of the
reach, has been armored with nprap from Brandywine Road to Reece Road. Some scour is
O evident under the Brandywine Road Bridge in front of the west abutment. Several storm drain
outfalls have fallen into disrepair, either from scour and erosion or age. In several locations, the
EA-11
• banks on either side of storm drain outfalls have been armored with concrete. At these locations,
bank and toe of slope erosion up and downstream of the outfall and undermining of the concrete
slope protection are common.
Generally, the banks are covered with vegetative growth, although bare spots coincident
with local bank failures are not uncommon. The vegetative canopy varies along the reach, with
the lower half having less canopy due to the proximity of development.
(5) Hillside Avenue to Freedom Park (Princeton Avenue):
The streambanks vary from moderately sloping to steep and from approximately 8 feet to, in
some areas, in excess of 15 feet in height. In general, the west bank is lower than the east bank.
Toe-of-bank erosion and bank sloughing are intermittent, but somewhat severe when present.
One long section of the east bank has experienced extensive sloughing and toe erosion. This area
is easily identified by a large stand of bamboo, which grows along the bank throughout this
particular section and is threatened by erosion. The extent of the erosion is generally evenly
distributed between the east and west banks. Undermining of slopes at storm sewer and tributary
outfalls, steep banks, and bank sloughing and failures are common. Approximately 400 feet of
the east and west banks, south of the Princeton Avenue Bridge, have been armored with riprap.
Bank sloughing:and?toe,erosiontare;occurring-justbelow:tbetndofthe. ripraW,-: , :..-w:r,
The columns on the center pier of the Princeton Avenue Bridge are located just inside the
• west streambank. There appears to have been some scour and past streambed degradation since
-- the tapered portion of the concrete columns are visible above the water line, although active
streambed degradation is not evidenced at other stream locations in the vicinity.
Vegetative canopy is extensive along the edges of the stream except in the upper portion of
the reach.
(6) Freedom Park (Princeton Avenue) to East Boulevard:
This reach is characterized by banks of varied height and slope. The lower half of this reach has
steep, high banks while the upper section has considerably lower bank heights. In general, the
west bank is significantly higher than the east bank in the lower half of the reach, while in the
upper half, the banks are approximately the same hei *. The-toe•vf the slope in this reach is
lined with concrete and grouted riprap. Toe of bank erosion and bank sloughing is intermittent.
The hydraulic control structure (Figure 2) in Freedom Park is located approximately 450
feet north-oft a Princeton Avenue Bridge. The concrete--rmed channel slopes immediately
upstream of the structure are experiencing severe undermining due to flow turbulence created by
the structure during flood events.
Vegetative canopy is extensive along the edges of the stream except in the upper portion
. of the reach in Freedom Park.
EA-12
• FIGURE 2 Hydraulic Control Structure (foreground) and Princeton Avenue Bridge
(background)
•
3.00 Alternatives
3.01 Goals of the Project. The goal of. the. project is to, estore.aquatic..habitat lost by the
channelization of Little Sugar Creek, from Tyvola Road to East Boulevard. A secondary goal of
the project is to reduce upstream sediment input into the restored area Site assessment has
revealed that the most significant source of sediment in the area appears to be streambank
erosion; therefore;-this problem is-most-effectively combated-with bank stabilization-in areas
which are rapidly eroding.
In most urban streams and creeks, restoration to pristine conditions is an unrealistic goal due to
the extent of prior watershed alteration. It has been documented that degradation of stream
10 quality occurs at relatively low levels (10-20 percent) of imperviousness; and at watershed
imperviousness levels above 30 percent, predevelopment channel stability and biodiversity
EA-13
• cannot be fully maintained, even when Best Management Practices (BMP's) or retrofits are fully
applied. The restoration objectives in urban streams should then be set to target realistically
attainable conditions. For the reach of interest along Little Sugar Creek, this translates to
reduction of bank erosion and partial restoration of aquatic and riparian habitat.
•
Specific goals identified for the Little Sugar Creek project and the expected benefits are as
follows:
Goal Benefits
Restoration of Aquatic and Increases biodiversity
Riparian Habitat Improves water quality
• Improves aeration of streamflow
Stabilization of Streambanks . Stops the loss of trees and other riparian habitat
Mitigates the threat of damage to infrastructure and
buildings
Stops the loss of real property
Decreases sediment loading from erosion
• Improves aesthetics of stream corridor
Stabilization of Storm Drain Mitigates erosive point source discharges
Outfalls Improves visual appeal of channel
• Improves aesthetics of stream corridor
Improvement of Channel Minimizes erosive forces at bridges and threat of
Transitions Through Bridges damage
Improves stream hydraulics through bridges
Development of Greenways/Pocket Increases recreational opportunities
Along Stream Corridor Promotes perception of creek as community
Improves aesthetics of stream corridor
3.02 Approaches to a Solution. Urban stream restoration is a process that attempts to recreate,
to the extent practicable, the morphology, habitat features, and biological integrity found in
undisturbed streams. The two primary goals of streambank stabilization and limited habitat
restoration can be-achieved througha variety of techniques: - --.-__-
Mecklenburg County currently utilizes two general types of bank stabilization techniques:
conventional bank stabilization and soil bioengineering. Conventional bank stabilization
techniques consist primarily of riprap, gabion walls, or grouted riprap and are used at sharp
. bends and other bank sections subject to significant erosion forces, toe-of-bank slopes, and where
facilities are threatened by bank instability. These techniques, by themselves, provide some
EA-14
habitat benefits, but can be supplemented to be somewhat responsive to changes in stream
characteristics and replace significant habitat deficiencies. The appearance, strength, and habitat
qualities of conventional bank stabilization techniques are improved by incorporating vegetation
into the structures.
More recently, soils bioengineering techniques have been successfully utilized to solve bank
erosion and instability problems. These techniques generally attempt to imitate the natural
streambank protection that has been lost or damaged through the use of plants as their main
structural component. They provide many ecological benefits to the stream, including cover,
shade, and soil improvements. These techniques often provide less intrusive, cost effective
solutions to bank stability problems encountered in the County.
In addition to improving bank conditions through vegetative means, aquatic habitat can be
restored through the installation of in stream habitat improvement structures. Urban streams
often lack the diverse morphological features that are found in undisturbed streams.
Aquatic habitat improvement structures improve habitat conditions by replacing lost pool and
riffle sequences, forming gravel beds, concentrating streamflows, increasing the structural
complexity of streams, and increasing depth, asymmetric geometry, tree canopies to shade water.
Several general rules for the construction of in-stream devices are:
Maximum effect on habitat should be achieved during low flow with negligible
• effects during high flows.
? Locations of the structures should depend upon habitat requirements. In general,
pools form naturally at bends and rifles in straight sections.
? The created structures must never form a barrier to fish migration.
? One type of habitat should not be created at the expense of another. Installation
of structures should avoid deflecting flows into unprotected streambanks.
The timing of construction of streambank stabilization and instream habitat improvement
projects is critical to their success. Cuttings can be installed only during dormant periods (laze
fall to early spring). Native plant species are recommended for use in vegetative stabilization.
The use of bioengineering bank stabilization techniques may be limited by light requirements to
the selected plant species. In locations with an extensive riparian tree cover, sunlight may not
adequately penetrate the tree cover to-allow plants to`estatblislr along the streambank.
Various in-stream habitat improvement features were analyzed for use in the project area.
Because of low stream gradient in project area, use of lowhead rock weir structures that provide
pool habitat; must Tie fimited. There is only an elevation Terence of about 2 F between
downstream and upstream ends of the project, therefore, if more than two weirs were used, the
entire project area would be converted to pool habitat. In lieu of such weirs, it was determined
that wing defectors and flow constrictors would diversify flows, oxygenate waters, create scour
holes in the stream bottom, and establish a distinct low flow channel. In concert with the
deflectors and constrictors, boulder clusters can be used to further diversify habitat. All habitat
EA-15
• enhancement features will be bedded either on footer boulders or concrete slabs to prevent
subsidence into the sandy substrate which currently makes up the stream bottom.
Wetlands planted adjacent to the stream channel would have potential to improve water quality
in Little Sugar Creek by removing nitrate and other chemicals, reduce sediments from entering
the stream channel by filtering upland runoff, and provide habitat for fish and benthic organisms.
Since the project area is a low gradient, featureless stream, distinct problems and opportunities
are present. Since the stream bottom is featureless, consisting of only one long sandy run, any
features that are added to diversify aquatic habitat will have positive benefits. The question
becomes one of determining when enough enhancement features have been added.
The low gradient of the stream, about 30 feet of vertical drop over 16,896 linear feet of stream
channel, and its sandy bottom substrate, present design challenges as many of the features
normally used in restoration activities, such as low-head weirs, cannot be used effectively. One
or two of these structures would convert the stream into a long continuous pool and not achieve
the objective of diversifying available habitats. Given these limiting conditions, flow restrictors
and deflectors, and boulder clusters, become the best available tools since they can define a low-
flow channel, create scour holes, and establish and maintain hard bottom substrates.
_i.? .. .•._. _ ..?i.. \ .: :l I` •t; .• ... ..._ L' .t..i.l..`. t.l.. t,k; ate-;.\.a. x..tL. .? ... An integral part of any stream restoration plan should be the replanting of riparian tree cover. In
the project area, trees cannot be planted on channel slopes as they would reduce the hydraulic
efficiency of the channel, nor can they be planted at a density that would impair access for future
- channel maintenance. Soft mast trees such as maples, ash and sycamore, and hard mast trees,
such as oaks, could be planted along the top of the bank. In addition to the mast provided, these
trees would replace much of the stream shading that was removed during project construction
and will improve the overall aesthetics of the project.
Upstream streambank stabilization (from Brandywine Road to East Boulevard) would prevent
the erosion and loss of valuable riparian habitat. This habitat provides valuable habitat for urban
wildlife and is essential for maintaining stream shading and moderating water temperatures for
aquatic organisms. Under existing conditions, erosion is chronic, and is causing habitat losses in
both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Erosion rates in the project area are not well defined, and
tend to vary by location. In addition, most erosion is episodic, occurring primarily during flood
events. For the purposes of analysis, a long-term average erosion rate'-of 0. HYft/yr was assumed
over the upstream stabilization area's length The riparian zone within this area was assumed to
have an average width of 20 feet. Given the 6,462-foot length of the proposed upstream
stabilization area, it was determined that approximately 5.9 acres of riparian habitat are present.
_ _
This is currently being lost at a rate' of 0:59-acres every 10 years. Craven a project effectiveness of
90 percent, which is considered valid because the worst areas of erosion will be treated, this
number drops to under a tenth of an acre every 10 years (0.059 ac.). The results of this analysis
are shown in table 2, below. For comparison purposes, a maximum stabilization plan that would
halt all erosion is also displayed.
EA-16
•
TABLE 2. RIPARIAN HABITAT (IN ACRES) REMAINING OVER TBIE UNDER
VARIOUS STABILIZATION OPTIONS.
MEASURE YEAR 0 YEAR 10 YEAR 30 YEAR 50
Maximum Stabilization 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Recommended Plan 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6
No Upstream Stabilization 5.9 5.3 4.1 2.9
From table 2, it can be seen that there is little difference between a maximum stabilization plan,
where all of the streambanks are riprapped and the recommended plan that only treats the worst
areas with bioengineering methods or riprap. It can also be observed that almost half of the
riparian habitat within the project area would be lost over the 50-year project life if no action is
taken. This is visually displayed in figure 3, below.
..:..FIGURE-3. RIPARIAN HABITAT OVERiTHE 50-.YEAR PROJECT•L•IFE.,: .
(IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN)
• Year
_ Year
Year
Yeas
ONo Action
¦ ae Plan
EMax Stab
Land lost from erosion equates to sedimentation, which will also degrade downstream fish
habitat. This would offset many of the benefits to be gained by placing fishery enhancement
structures in the stream. While a maximum stabilization plan would stop the downstream
sedimentation completely, the additional increment of sedimentation to be stopped does not
warrant the additional expense. For this reason, a plan which stabilizes only the worst areas of
erosion is most appropriate.
3.03 Alternative 1- Recommended. There are two components to the recommended plan:
L _ _Placement of fisherrenhancement structures-and riparian tree plantings in and
adjacent to Little Sugar Creek from Tyvola Road to East Boulevard. The project area consists of
approximately 3.2 miles of stream channel and adjacent riparian habitat.
Within the stream channel 14 boulder clusters, 6 stream deflector weirs, 1 rock weir, 9
• cross vanes, 7 "J" hook vanes, and 3 rock vanes will be placed within the stream channel of Little
Sugar Creek. Rock vanes, stream deflectors, and J-Hook vanes project into the stream at an
EA-17
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
• upstream angle of 24 degrees, placed either staggered or directly opposite each other to diversify
flows through deflection or creation of scoured areas. These will be used in conjunction with the
cross vanes, rock weir, and boulder clusters which will be bedded either on footer boulders or
concrete slabs. Siting criteria were established with the objective of evenly distributing
enhancement features (habitat diversity) over the length of the project and promoting mixing in
the water column. Since the project reach is fairly uniform, ultimate site selection was made
based on tributary stream locations, locations of bends in the stream, and spacing between
structures. Locations and types of structures being proposed can be seen in the Environmental
Restoration Report (ERR).
Trees will be planted along the top of the channel between the travelway and channel side slope
to provide stream shading and aesthetic enhancement. Trees will also be planted in the channel
side slopes whether they are stabilized with concrete, grouted riprap, rock riprap, or soil
bioengineering methods. Exact species and varieties of trees to be planted will depend on
availability and will be finalized during Plans and Specifications. Species which produce either
soft or hard mast will be preferred throughout the project area.
In conjunction with the tree planting within the riparian area, a small 280-foot long and 50-foot
wide wetland area (which will be planted primarily with cattail (Typha sp.)) would be
constructed/planted upstream of the proposed instream rock weir in Freedom Park. The
proposed wetland area will be constructed adjacent to the creek channel Additionally, the
existing hydraulic control structure (Figure 2) in Freedom Park, located approximately 450 feet
i north of the Princeton Avenue Bridge would be removed.
2. Upstream bank stabilization would be performed on eroding sites upstream on Little
Sugar Creek from Brandywine Road to East Boulevard. The project area consists of
approximately 1.7 miles of stream channel. Upstream bank stabilization criteria, i.e., types of
upstream stabilization, location of alternatives, and design criteria, can be found in the ERR In
water portions of bank stabilization features will also provide a diversification of fish habitat in
the upstream area. While this benefit is not being sought as a project purpose, the benefits can be
substantial.
Right-of-way limits for the proposed action will generally extend 25 feet beyond the existing top
of bank or slope intercept point in graded areas for the working bank and 10 feet on the non-
working bank. Right-of-way will be used for project construction andmaintenance access and
for any landscaping measures. The working bank will be the primary bank for construction and
access to the stream. The working bank will be cleared where necessary for construction access
and once all construction is completed will be replanted. This calculates to be approximately 9.7
acr e s of perpetual easerrient needed fort oposed act i on -The temporary work area easement
will be an additional 10 feet in width in various areas of the project There is approximately 3.9
acres of temporary work area easement, this area includes the three proposed staging areas that
will be located along the project area. Access for construction is limited to areas near existing
public roads. It is the responsibility of Mecklenburg County (the non Federal project sponsor) to
acquire the necessary real estate interest for the project as well as any maintenance needed in the
EA-18
future. All real estate will be acquired by project sponsor through temporary and perpetual
• channel improvement easements.
The proposed action will improve the abundance and diversity of fishes and benthic organisms,
slow the loss of valuable riparian habitat, reduce in-stream sedimentation, and improve the
appearance of the creek.
The Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection monitors species diversity
and abundance of fishes and benthos in most of the county's streams. The Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) will coordinate with this agency to have
monitoring of fish and benthic organism populations in the stream before construction and for 3
years following completion of the project. Results of this monitoring will be provided to all
concerned agencies.
3.04 Alternative 2 - No Upstream Stabilization. The alternative would provide fishery
enhancement structures and tree plantings without upstream bank stabilization. While many
fishery benefits could still result from this alternative, the lack of upstream bank stabilization
would seriously degrade the effectiveness of downstream habitat improvement features.
Excessive sediments are known to degrade fish habitat by burying spawning areas, destabilizing
channel bottom morphology, and abrading attachment surfaces for benthic organisms which
provide the base of the food supply for fishes. If this sediment supply is reduced or eliminated,
habitat stability and productivity increases. Incidental fishery habitat enhancement benefits
• provide by the bank stabilization features would also be forgone. This alternative is not preferred
by the sponsor.
3.05 Alternative 3 - No Action. The no action alternative would allow existing conditions to
persist in the project area Fishery resources would continue in a degraded condition, stream
shading would not be provided, and sediment input into, and through, the fishery enhancement
area would continue unabated. No dollars would be expended and no benefits attributable to the
project would be attained. This alternative is not preferred by the project sponsor.
4.00 Affected Environment
4.01 Vegetation and Wildlife. In the project area, flood plain forest vegetation has largely been
removed and few sizable tracts of forested habitat remain. The largest wooded tract remaining in
the flood plain of the project area is located just upstream of the confluence of Little Sugar and
Briar Creeks... Much of the remaining. woodland lies alongside Little_Sugar_Creek in strips 20 feet
wide or less. The overstory vegetation present along the creeks include sycamore (Platanus
occidentahs), white ash (Fraxinus americana), box elder (Acer negundo), red maple (Acer
rubrum), and black willow (Salix niger). Understory vegetation includes immature specimens of
overstory tress as well as sumac (Rhus glabra), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), alder (Alms
• serrulata), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
and poison ivy (Rhus radicans).
EA-19
• Most of the riparian woodlands of the project area have been classified by the USFWS as
temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, palustrine forested wetlands. These areas would
also be classified as wetlands under the definitions provided in Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act of 1977, as amended, and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Filling of such
wetland areas is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Riparian forests such as those found along Little Sugar Creek have long been recognized as
having outstanding value to both fish and wildlife resources due to their high productivity and
their provision of food, cover, and water. However, because of the intensity of the urban
development in the project area and the fragmented nature of the remaining wooded habitat, the
wildlife value of the project area is greatly diminished and only those wildlife species commonly
associated with urbanized areas should be expected to occur.
Urban wildlife normally subsists in ecotonal or early successional stage cover types like those
found in the Little Sugar Creek floodplam. While urban wildlife populations are less diverse
than those found in less disturbed habitats, they can be a valuable recreational and aesthetic
resource because of their increased visibility to man.
Common. speaies?of mammals :which leave been documented to occur in the riparian woodlands
along the creek include the opossum (Didelphu marmTtalu), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carohnensis), and cottontail (SylvilagusJlori&mus). Common bird species
• documented from the Little Sugar Creek area include the red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus),
-- - kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinahs), and mockingbird (Mimuspolyglottos).
Riparian forests are diminishing in areas upstream of the fisheries enhancement project due to
streambank erosion. The proposed upstream bank stabilization features associated with this
project will help to stem this loss. Some impacts to riparian forest will occur during placement
of bank stabilization measures; however, the long-term effect on these systems will be beneficial.
Approximately acres of riparian habitat will be protected by bank stabilization efforts as
illustrated graphically in section 3.02.
4.02 Fishes. Mecklenburg County has done extensive surveys of the fishes and benthos present
in the creeks and streams of the county. Little Sugar Creek has been thoroughly sampled
although most of the sampling sites fall outside of the portion of the stream which would be
directly affected by the proposed project. Two stations were located downstream of the project
area: one at Archdale Drive and the other in the vicinity of Woodlawn Road. Sixteen species
were c& 66ted-Kh- these sites. The "following is 'a composite list of the species collected from
these stations:
white sucker (Catostomus commersom) gmnfm shiner (Cyprinella cNoristia)
creek chubsucker (Erin)won oblongus) carp (Cyprbw cwpio
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas
green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonim
EA-20
• bluegill (Lepomis machrochirus) swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) white catfish (Ameiwus catus
gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) black bullhead (Ameirus melas
flat bullhead (Amehow platycephalus)
eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbroola)
In these sites, the redbreast sunfish was numerically the dominant species, comprising roughly 60
percent of the total fish captured. The greenfin shiner was the second most abundant, comprising
approximately 22 percent of the total. Eight species where represented by less than five
specimens from the two stations combined. All of the above species are relatively pollution
tolerant. Notably absent from this list are the darters and other species requiring rocky, well-
aerated waters.
Seven other species present in the Little Sugar watershed may occupy the project area and were
undetected during the surveys, or could occupy the area if suitable habitat were provided. With
the provision of more balanced and stable habitat, other species which are currently in the project
area in low numbers should increase in numbers.
armouth (Lepomis gulosus)
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculaim)
whitefin shiner (Cyprinella nivea)
sandbar shiner (Notropis scepdcus)
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus
snail bullhead (Ameiwus brunneus)
snail bullhead (Ameiwus brunneus)
• Currently, habitat within the channel of the fisheries enhancement project area is extremely
limited, consisting largely of one continuous sandy bottom run, interrupted only by two bridge
crossings and a wastewater discharge. Sedimentation severely limits the aquatic habitats
available within the project area. During low flows, large sand bars and flats appear, causing the
channel to acquire a more sinuous and braided character. During floodflows, massive quantities
of bottom sediments are resuspended and moved downstream until flow velocities fall to a rate
where the material can no longer be kept in suspension. At this point it is redeposited and
reworked by normal streamflows until new bars and flats are formed This continual reworking
of the stream bottom selects against fish and benthic organisms which require habitat stability.
Stream temperatures are also subject to rapid and high variation. After summer thunderstorms,
temperatures can elevate several degrees due to heated water running off of the streets and
parking areas in the watershed (personal communication, Anthony Roux, Mecklenburg County
Department of Environmental Protection). In addition, streambanks in the project area are
vegetated only with grasses and shrubs, leaving the stream channel unshaded until late in the
afternoon when shadows from trees which occur outside the powerlme right-of-way along the
westernban___k gin reach the stream . This_couditiiQn-ofuusually high arebimt water
temperature, when compounded with rapid temperature increases following storms, creates a
situation where fishes and benthic organisms are placed under extreme stress. To help offset the
existing water temperature problem, placement of stream shading trees will be an integral part of
the aquatic habitat restoration project. While these trees will not ameliorate the problem of
sudden temperature increases resulting from storms, they will hold down the ambient water
EA-21
. temperature so that extreme temperatures should not rise as high. This benefit will be carried
downstream outside of the project area.
•
The many acres of impervious surface in the watershed have radically altered the hydrology of
the stream, causing bankfull flows much more frequently than would occur in an undeveloped
forested watershed. Because of the increased frequency of bankfull flows, the streambanks in
and upstream of the project area have become unstable, greatly exacerbating the sedimentation
problem in the watershed. For this reason, the proposed project includes upstream measures
designed to reduce sediment input into the aquatic habitat restoration area
The proposed restoration project should significantly increase the variety and improve the
stability of the aquatic habitat available in the fisheries enhancement project area. Table 3,
below, gives project acreage's of habitats available in the project area before and after the
restoration.
TABLE 3. AVAn ABLE HABITAT TYPES (IN ACRES) BEFORE AND AFTER THE
RESTORATION PROJECT.
HABITAT EXISTING WITH PROJECT CHANGE +/-
Riffle 0.0 2.5 +2.50
Run 9.25 4.5 -4.75
Pool 0.45 2.7 +2.25
Totals 9.7 9.7
* Assumes 0.15 acre of pool habitat and 0.10 acre of rifle habitat created per structure.
4.03 Benthos. Benthic resources in the fisheries enhancement project area are extremely
limited. This relates primarily to the large sediment load currently being carried by the stream,
with massive redistributions of bottom sediments occurring after each floodflow event. In such
an unstable environment, only the hardiest benthic organisms can survive. With upstream bank
stabilization, the sediment load transported through the project area should be reduced, allowing
amore stable environment to evolve. Benthic organisms in the project area are also limited by a
lack of hard structure attachment surfaces. Currently, within the project reach, none exists except
that offered by bridge pilings. The fisheries enhancement project will provide many new
attachment surfaces and benthic production and diversity should both increase.
Baseline benthic data collected by Mecklenburg County on August 24, 1996, from the rock
rapids at and below Archdale Road indicate a fairly low species diversity. The most common
taxa present were caddisflies (Hydropsychidae) and mayflies (Baetidae). Also occurring were
riffle beetles (Elmidae), black flies (Simuliidae), dobsonflies (Corydalidae), and damselflies
(Coenagnomdae). As mentioned above, after project construction, these and additional species
will likely inhabit the newly placed fishery enhancement structures, increasing both diversity and
production in the project area
EA-22
• 4.04 Threatened and Endangered Species. Numerous field surveys of the project area have
not disclosed the presence of any threatened or endangered species in the project area. As this
area has been heavily urbanized for many years most fragile and sensitive habitats have been
thoroughly disturbed and modified. One species,,Schweinitz`s sunflower (Helianthus
schweinadi) has been located in some urbanized habitats in Mecklenburg County, most
frequently on Iredell soils. Examination of soil surveys reveal that no Iredell soils occur along
Little Sugar Creek with in the project area; regardless, the species was sought during summer and
fall field surveys. These surveys indicate that the species does not occur in the project area It
has, therefore, been determined that this project is not likely to adversely affect any listed
species.
4.05 Water Onality. The NCDWQ has classified Little Sugar as Class C (fishabletswimmable)
waters. Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish.and aquatic
life propagation and survival, agriculture and other suitable uses. Secondary recreation includes
wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities
take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on
watershed development activities.
The .Little: Sugar. Creek watershed is the most populated. area in Mecklenburg County, with the
highest population density and smallest amount of open space. Water quality in the basin Sugar
Creek is considered the poorest in Mecklenburg County (Mecklenburg County, 1998). The
county has classified the water quality in the stream as Poor/Fair. Nitrate is the primary pollutant
- in the creek and the wastewater treatment plant just below the confluence of Briar and Little
Sugar Creek is the primary source. Other sources of pollution in the basin are industrial
discharges and stormwater runoff.
A Section 401 (PL 95-217) Water Quality Certificate for the project will be obtained before
construction. A Section 404(b) (1)Evaluation Report has been prepared and is contained as
appendix A to this document.
4.06 Cultural Resources. Prior Corps studies of the Little Sugar Creek basin (USACE, 1983)
did not identify any known archaeological or historic sites within the project area. The severely
altered channels and streambanks make disturbance of valuable unknown resources very
unlikely, particularly in the area of the fishery enhancement structures where^the stream
channelization flood control project was constructed.
4.07 Hazardous. Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes. No hazardous or toxic waste sites are
known fo occur in the project area; nor will any toxic siibstances be introduced as a-part of this
project.
4.08 Prime or Unique Farmland. No farmland will be disturbed by any portion of this project.
As indicated previously, the project area is fully developed with all land being used for
is residential or commercial purposes. Soils adjacent to the stream are mapped primarily as
EA-23
. Monacan (MO and MS), with small areas of Pacolet (PaE), Cecil (CeD2), Wilkes (WuD and
WeK), Enon (EnD), and Urban (Ur).
4.09 Wetlands. As mentioned in section 4.01, the riparian forests of the project area are
classified as temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, palustrine forested wetlands.
Placement of the fishery enhancement structures will not have any effect on riparian vegetation
as the area is previously channelized and has well maintained streambanks. Tree plantings along
the enhancement reach will help to reestablish riparian habitat values. Upstream streambank
stabilization will help to protect riparian vegetation which is currently being subjected to erosive
forces.
Little Sugar Creek is classified as riverine perennial systems, with unconsolidated sand and silt
bottoms. The banks are steep, generally varying in height between 8 and 10 feet, and water
depth is variable. In the fishery enhancement area, water depth is fairly uniform and flow
dependent, ranging from a few inches during drought periods to bank full during flood events.
The Rosgen Classification of the Little Sugar Creek in the project area is a "sandy gully" G5
Stream Type (Rosgen 1996).
In conjunction with the tree planting within the riparian area, a small 280-foot long and 50-foot
wide wetland area (winch will be plantedprimanly with cattail (Typha sp.)) would be
constructed/planted upstream of the proposed instream rock weir in Freedom Park. The
proposed wetland area will be constructed adjacent to the creek channel
4.10 Air Quality. The !? ro' is in compliance with Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA). Air quality in Charlotte is designated as an attainment area (Ms. Joan Liu,
Mecklenburg Department Environmental Protection, personal communication, January 7,
1999). The direct and indirect emissions from the project fall below the prescribed de
minimus levels; therefore, this project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air
quality of this attainment area.
4.11 Aesthetics. Because of the heavily urbanized nature of the project area, many persons will
experience changes in viewscape as a result of project construction. Four bridges cross the
creeks within the project area, and numerous residential, commercial, and office areas abut the
creeks.
During project construction, riparian trees will be preserved wherever possible in order to soften
changes in views. In addition, trees being planted in the fish habitat restoration area will give the
stream a more park-like and natural appearance than the mowed habitat which currently exists
throughout tTie area. Viewscapes I'dm Brandywine Roaid- East Boulevard iff-&6 fish habitat
restoration area will be landscaped in order to improve the appearance of the project from these
roads. With the diversification of the stream channel, landscape plantings, and stabilization of
eroding streambanks, the overall aesthetic appearance of the project area should be improved.
EA-24
• 4.12 Other Significant Resources. Section 122 of Public Law 91-611 identifies other
significant resources which should be considered during project development. These resources,
and their occurrence in the study area, are described below.
a. Air, noise, and water pollution: Air quality is discussed in section 4.10. Noise is a
prominent feature of the project area due to the presence of many roads and bridge crossings.
Construction will elevate noise levels somewhat. Construction contractors will be required to
comply with all local noise ordinances. Water quality is discussed in section 4.05.
b. Man-made and natural resources, aesthetic values, community cohesion and the
availabili U of public facilities and services: Man-made resources in the project area which will
be directly affected by the project include bridges, parking lots, powerlines and pipelines. There
will be no direct affects to roads, businesses, industries, residences or park lands. Natural
resources are discussed in sections 4.01-4.03. Aesthetic values are discussed in section 4.11.
Since Little Sugar Creek traverse through a highly urbanized area and offer no barrier for
movement of the population, they have little bearing on community cohesion of the City of
Charlotte. Public facilities and services exist throughout the project area in the form of
recreational areas, highways, and utility lines. None of these will be adversely affected by the
project.
c. Employment, tax and property value: The project area provides many types of
employment for the City of Charlotte as numerous offices and commercial establishments occur
along the creeks. Property values in the vicinity of the project are high and the contributions of
these employers to the tax base of the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County are significant.
Project construction should not affect employment, taxes, or property values.
d. Displacement of people, businesses, and farms: No people, businesses, or farms will be
displaced by the construction of the proposed project.
e. Community and regional growth: The City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County are
presently experiencing significant economic growth. The proposed project will not affect the
growth climate of the area. .
4.13 Executive Orders.
Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment). The
proposed plan has been evaluated under Executive Order 11593, and it is not an undertaking
affecting potential National Register sites.
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). The project will unavoidably impact stream
bottoms and riparian areas which would defined as wetlands under Executive Order 11990;
however, no net loss of wetlands is anticipated as a result of the project. In conjunction with the
tree planting within the riparian area, a small 280-foot long and 50-foot wide wetland area
(which will be planted primarily with cattail (Typha sp.)) would be constructed/planted upstream
EA-25
of the proposed instream rock weir in Freedom Park. The proposed 14,000 square foot wetland
• area will be constructed adjacent to the creek channel.
Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Protection). The project would also occur in an area defined
as a flood plain. All practicable steps have been taken to ensure compliance to the maximum
extent practicable as required by the Order. There are no options available for restoring aquatic
habitat and stabilizing streambanks site which do not involve construction in the flood plain. By
limiting the size of restoration features, no increases in flood stages are anticipated.
However, before any fill material is placed within the regulatory floodways, a "no-rise"
certification will be obtained pursuant to FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program and
Mecklenburg County's floodway regulations. Mecklenburg County's floodway regulations state:
"With the exception of stream crossings which would not raise the base flood elevation level
more than one foot, no encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements
and other developments shall be permitted unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic
and hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standard engineering practice, that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in the flood level during the occurrence
of a base flood, changed[s] in floodway elevations, or floodway width. Such certification and
technical data by a registered professional engineer shall be presented to the local administrator."
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Communities and Low Income Populations). The proposed action
would not adversely affect any minority communities or low income populations. All work will
be confined to the stream channels and immediately adjacent streambanks. Existing flooding
problems in the watershed will not be aggravated by any of the proposed work.
Executive Order 13405 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks). This
Executive Order mandates Federal agencies identify and assess environmental health and safety
risks that may disproportionately affect children as a result of the implementation of Federal
policies, programs, activities, and standards. The proposed fish habitat restoration and upstream
bank stabilization will not impact schools or other known gathering places for children.
However, much or the project will occur in residential and commercial areas and children may
visit the creeks in these settings. Correcting steep-sided, eroding creek banks and removing
urban trash and debris from the construction sites should improve the overall safety of the creek
for children.
5.00 Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed as a part of this project as its construction will result in a substantial
improvement to the aquatic and riparian ecosystem of Little Sugar Creek. Fishery habitat will be
enhanced and ongoing erosion of riparian wetlands with stream sedimentation will be reduced.
•
EA-26

6.00 Coordination
6.01 Scoping. Various water resources projects have been under consideration in the City of
Charlotte for many years. As a result, major issues and concerns relating to water resources
development are well documented, therefore, no formalized scoping was conducted. During plan
formulation, natural resource management agencies were contacted by telephone or attended
onsite meetings to discuss potential project designs and issues of concern. These agencies
included the USFWS, the NCWRC, and the NCDWQ.
6.02 List of Recipients. The following agencies and individuals have been provided a copy of
this Environmental Assessment (EA).
•
REPRESENTATIVES
Honorable Sue Myrick
Honorable Jesse Helms
Honorable John Edwards
FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Federal Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Forest Service, USDA
HUD, Atlanta Regional Office
Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Environmental Conservation Office, Department of
Commerce, NOAA
Center of Disease Control
Beaufort Marine Fisheries Center, National Marine
Fisheries Service
Director, Office of Environmental Affairs,
Department of the Interior
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Highway Administration
Asheville Field Office, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of the Solicitor, Energy and Resources,
U.S. Department of the Interior
State Conservationist, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA
Area Conservationist, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA
Director, Office of Environmental Compliance,
Department of Energy
Regional Director, National Park Service
National Park Service, Washington, DC
40 UTILITIES
STATE AGENCIES
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners
INDEPENDENT GROUPS AND
INDIVIDUALS
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Cape Fear Group Sierra Club
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Defenders of Wildlife
Fund for Animals
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Audubon Society, Southeastern Regional
Office
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund
North Carolina Coastal Federation
NC Fisheries Association
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Wilderness Society
Dr. Anne B. McCrary
Dr. Vince Bellis
Mr. Ray P. Brandi, Cape Fear Community College
Ortift ey"Ph.D.
Billy Edge
Robert Dean
John Babicz
EA-27
AllTel Carolina
AT&T
BellSouth
Charlotte Engineering & Prop. Mgt.
City of Charlotte, Storm Water Services
City of Charlotte, Street Maintenance
City of Charlotte; DOT
CMUD; Engineering Division
CMUD;Sewer Maintenance
Cresent EMC
Duke Energy -Power Poles
Duke Energy - Transmission
ICG Telcom
LDDS/Worldcom
Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation
Mecklenburg County Dept. of Environmental
Protection
MCI Telecommunications
NCDOT
•
Piedmont Natural Gas - Transmission
Piedmont Natural Gas - Distribution
Sprint - Network Operations
TICS Corporation
Time-Warner Cable
NEWSPAPERS
Charlotte Observer
4 -1 t t :_i I_ ?
Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenburg County
Arboretum Branch Library
NC Collection, Wilson Library, UNC-Chapel Hill
NC Dept of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources Library
Randall Library, UNC-Wilmington
State Library of North Carolina
Joyner Library, East Carolina University
r
EA-28
• 6.03 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The USFWS has previously provided a Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act report on flood control projects that were planned for Little Sugar
Creek during the late 1980's. This coordination act report (USFWS, 1981) was used as input for
this project and, while dated, is still adequate due to the limited fish and wildlife resources
present in the area. Major recommendations expressed in that report are to protect and improve
of riparian vegetation, revegetate exposed soils, and improve fish habitat. The current proposal
will accomplish all of these recommendations.
7.00 Environmental Commitments
The following commitments must be fiilfilled:
1. For any land disturbance one acre or larger in size, a Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Plan must be approved by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources.
2. Before any work is initiated at Little Sugar Creek, the required 401 Water Quality
Certificate from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and a stormwater management
permit from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality must be obtained.
3. The Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection monitors species
diversity and abundance of fishes and benthos in most of the county's stream. The Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) will coordinate with this agency to have
monitoring of fish and benthic organism populations in the stream before construction and for 3
years following completion of the project. Results of this monitoring will be provided to all
concerned agencies.
4. Before any fill material is placed within the regulatory floodways, a "no-rise"
certification will be obtained pursuant to FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program and
Mecklenburg County's floodway regulations.
8.00 List of Preparers
The following people provided major support in the development and preparation of this EA.
NAME (Role) EXPERTISE EXPERIENCE DISCIPLINE
Bill Adams Env. Impact 23yrs., Env. Biology
(EA Reviewer) Assessment Resources Sec.
Wilm. Dist.; 0.5 yrs.,
Nat. Park Serv.
Sharpsburg, Md.
•
•
.... ...........
Hugh Heine
(EA Preparer)
Gene Griffin
(EA Supervision)
Env. Impact
Assessment
Water Resources
& Env. Planning
Coleman Long Planning &
(Planning Supervision) Environmental
Dan Small Study
(Study Management) Management
Doug Green Planning
(Project Planning) & Design
Biology
Landscape
Architecture
Landscape
Architecture
Physical Science
Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering
No unacceptable adverse effects on water and aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, wetlands
and floodplains, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, recreational resources,
recreational fishing, or socio-economic resources are expected to occur as a result of the
proposed placement of five fishery enhancement structures, riparian tree plantings, and
streambank stabilization on Little Sugar Creek from Brandywine Road to East Boulevard..
Based on the EA which precedes, the recommended plan will not significantly affect the quality
of the human environment; therefore, this action will not be the subject of an environmental
impact statement.
9yrs., Env.
Resources Sec.
Wilm. District
32 yrs., USACE
4 yrs., Priv. Consul.
23 yrs., Env.
Resources and
Planning, Wilm. Dist.
15 yrs., Env.
Resources and Planning;
7 yrs., State of N.C.
23 yrs., Planning,
Wilm. Dist.
Larry Creech Engineering 22 yrs., Design,
(Project Engineering) Wilm. Dist.
9.00 Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
0
• 10.00 References
Mecklenburg County. 1998. 1998 State of the Environment. Mecklenburg County, Department
of Environmental Protection.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District. 1983. Sugar Creek Basin, Feasibility
Report and Environmental Impact Statement for Water Resources Development. Final Report.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. April 1999. Environmental Assessment,
Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration (Section 1135), Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. January 2000. Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact, Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration (Section 1135),
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,
Processes, and Practices. June 1998. Final Draft.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina
USFWS Final Coordination Act Report. August 1981. Division of Ecological Service,
Charleston, South Carolina
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina
USFWS Final Coordination Act Report. August 1981. Division of Ecological Service,
Charleston, South Carolina
0
• APPENDIX A
SECTION 404(b)(1) (PUBLIC LAW 95-217) EVALUATION
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK - SECTION 206
14ECIRLMBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0
0
• SECTION 404(b)(1) (PUBLIC LAW 95-217) EVALUATION
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK - SECTION 206
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROL
IBiA
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
40 CFR 230
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary Final
Review of the NEPA Document
indicates:
a. The discharge represents the
least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative and if in a
special aquatic site, the activity
associated with the discharge must have
direct access or proximity to, or be
located in the aquatic ecosystem to
fulfill its basic purpose (if no, see
section 2 and NEPA document);
b. The activity does not: 1)
violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards
prohibited under Section 307 of the CWA;
2) jeopardize the existence of federally
listed endangered or threatened species
or their habitat; and 3) violate
requirements of any federally designated
marine sanctuary (if no, see section 2b
and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies);
c. The activity will not cause or
contribute to significant degradation
of waters of the U.S. including adverse
effects on human health, life stages of
organisms dependent on the aquatic
ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and
recreational, aesthetic, and economic
values (if no, see section 2);
d. Appropriate and practicable steps
T have tFeen-taken to mizrimize• potential
adverse impacts of the discharge on the
aquatic ecosystem (if no, see section
S)
® Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2/ See page A-6
YES%) NOJ_J* YESIBI NOJ_J
YES111 NOJ_J* YES111 Not=)
YES111 NOJ_J* YESIBI NOJ_J
YESIE1 NOJ_J* YES111 NOJ_J
A-1
•

•
A-1
• 2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians).
C. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sanctuaries and refuges.
Wetlands.
Mud flats.
Vegetated shallows.
Coral reefs.
Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.
(4) Aesthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
Remarks: Where a mark is placed under
the significant category, preparer add
-explanation below.
Impacts to aquatic food web will be beneficial.
Proceed to Section 3
O *See page A-6
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
I C X l I

I I
I_ I I I
X I I
I I X I I
i I

I I I I
X I I

I I
I I i I
X 1 I

I !
I_X i I
I
I I
I l X I I
I I
I l i X I

I I
X I i
I I X I I
I I X I I
X
I I
IXI I i
Ixl I I
IXI I I
I I
I I
X I 'I
I I
I
I
I I
X I I
X I
I I X I I
I l X I I
I I
I I L
I I
I I
I I
IXI I I
I I
1 I
A-1
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
. a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Mark only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IgI
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IgI
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •IgI
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA)

hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
. . . U'
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other
sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I g I
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
-- released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . I-I
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment, Little Sugar Creek -
Section 1135, Mecklenburg, Dare County, North Carolina
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site.
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES IgI NO I_I*
Proceed to Section 4
see page A-6
0
A-1
• 4. Disposal Site Determinations 1230, 11If)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . .IgI
(2) Current velocity, direction, and _
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . IBI
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IBI
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IgI
(5) Discharge vessel speed and _
direction . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . I_I
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IBI
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities). . . . . . . . . . . .IBI
(B) Number of discharges per unit of
time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IgI
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
• List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment, Little Sugar Creek -
Section 1135, Mecklenburg, Dare County, North Carolina
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site _
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable . . . .YES IBI NO I_I*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed _
discharge. List actions taken. YES IBI NO I_I*
For water quality see Section 4.10 of the EA
For benthos see Section 4.03 of the EA.
For fisheries see Section 4.02 of the EA.
For mitigation see Section 5.00 of the EA.
For threatened and endangered species see Section 4.04 of the EA.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page A-6.
*See page A-6
•
A-1
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
•
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES CBI NO U*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES JAI NO 1_1*
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES JAI NO 1_1*
d. Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4). YES JAI NO 1_1*
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function YES CAI NO I_I*
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site _
(review sections 2, 4, and 5). YES CAI NO 1_1*
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES ISM NO
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
• ecosystem. YES CAI NO U*
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the.
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .JAI
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions:
*See page A-6
•
A-1
• c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reason (s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative.
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . .
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . .
S.
W. Coleman Long.
Chief, Planning
Branch
Ben Wood
Chief, Technical Service
Division
Date:
I JJ1
?J
Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit application
may not be in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
J Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage
indicate that the proposed projects may not be evaluated using this "short form
procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the technical
information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of compliance.
J Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that
the proposed project does not comply with the guidelines. If the economics of
navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated in the decision-
making process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
V If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing, the
"short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate.
1I 1J
u
A-1
•
APPENDIX A
REAL ESTATE PLAN
0
0
•
REAL ESTATE PLAN
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
•
ACQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
Section 206
CHARLOTTE, NC
•
PREPARED BY: J. Kevin Ambrose, CESAS-RE-RP, [phone]
STUDY MANAGER: Al Bjorkquist, CESAW-PM-C, (910) 2514596
ITR: Kathy Wash; CESAS-RE-RL; [phone] -
DATE: 03 February2000
ITR REVISION: w
• LITTLE SUGAR CREEK AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, Section 206
FEASIBILITY STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT
1. The Real Estate Report
2_ Authorization
3. Project Description
4_ Project Sponsor Responsibilities
5. Utilitv Relocation
6. Existing Projects
7. Disposal Sites
8. Environmental Impact
•
9. Wetland Concerns
10. Real Estate Acquisition
11. Properties Affected
12. P.L. 91-646 Relocation
13. Government Owned Property
14. Mineral Rights
15. Views of the Sponsor
16. Acquisition Schedule
17. Proposed Estates
18. Real Estate Estimate
O Assessment of Non-federal Sponsor's Real Estate Acquisition Capability
PAGE
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
8
• I. THE REAL ESTATE REPORT. The information and values contained in this report are
tentative in nature and are to be used for planning purposes only. Although this report is based on
data obtained from the Wilmington District, minor modifications to the plan may occur thus
changing the final acquisition areas and/or administrative and land cost. I have personally
conducted site visits to the subject project area.
The Project Sponsor (PS) is Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
2. AUTHORIZATION. The project is being conducted under authority of Section 2106 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, P.L. 99-662, as amended.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The proposed project area is located in Charlotte, Meclaenburg
County, North Carolina. This is a Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project that is
located on the southside of Downtown Charlotte. North Carolina. The proposed project begins at
• Brandywine Road, traveling upstream past the confluence of Li?)?/ Sugar Creek and Dair\'
Branch, and ending at East Boulevard. (See Exhibit "A" -- Location Map)
Prior flood control projects from Archdale Drive to the confluence with Briar Creek have
reduced the available aquatic habitat and the stream bank vegetation. The channelization of the
creek has led to increased water velocity and erosion of the sandy creek bottom. The periodic
maintenance of the flood control project will stop vegetative recovery on the stream banks. In
addition, upstream stream bank erosion and development will continue to provide sediment
sources which will effectively limit natural recovery of the aquatic system.
The goals of the project are the restoration of natural aquatic and riparian habitat,
. stabilization of stream bank and storm drain outfalls, improvement to channel transitions through
bridges and the development of greenways along the stream corridor. This will be accomplished
1
• through utilizing bioengineering methods and bank-anchoring techniques coupleC with the
construction of stream reflector weirs and boulder clusters to improve aquatic habitat within the
streambed and increasing riparian tree cover.
Project Reaches -- The, proposed project begins at Brandywine Road and travels
upstream, past the confluence of Little Sugar Creek and Dairy Branch. ending at D51 Doulevard.
The creek is located along the rear and side boundary of almost all of the affect;-` parcels of
adjoining lands. The exception is located at the upper reach of the project. x6tere tile- creek flows
through a public park.
In general, right of way limits for the proposed project area ,vill extend 25 feet beyond tilt
existing top of the bank or slope intercept point in graded areas for working bank and 10 feet on
the non-working bank. More specifically, the width of the perpetual channel improvement
work ease cents \vill be an additional
• easement will be an avera!,e of 65 feet in width. TeinPoran ;,?
..
fifteen (15) feet in width. Staging areas will be located within the temporary work area easement
and the county-owned park. Access for construction will be by use of existing public roads.
Proposed Project -- The proposed project would consist of improving in-stream fish
cover and providing bank stabilization, as needed, within the flood control project area and points
upstream to recover lost habitat values and protect the installed habitat features from
sedimentation. Aquatic habitat will be restored through the installation of in-stream habitat
improvement structures including boulder "S", "V", or "W" shaped dams, boulder clusters, and
lunker boxes. Because of the existing condition of heavy streambank erosion. the primary project
goal of aquatic habitat restoration can only be achieved if a companion element of stream bank
0 stabilization to reduce sedimentation and protect riparian habitat is incorporated into the project.
2
• The two types of bank stabilization techniques that will be used are as follows: converzional bank
armoring and soil bioengineering. Bank armoring techniques consist priniani of rip 7':_p, °_abion
walls, or grouted rip-rap and are used at sharp bends and other bank sections sub;:.ct to _ignific:_nt
erosion forces, toe of bank slopes, and where facilities are threatened by bank insta-Iility. Soil
blocnQincering techniques auenlpt to imitate the natural stream bank proiection c:en 1c_:
or damaged throu(11 the use of plants as their main structural coInpoIleni. The pf?:-:S provlce
11131111' ecological benefits to the stream. including cover, shade, and soil improvements.
4. PROJECT SPONSOR (PS) RESPONSIBILITIES. It will be the responsibilliy Of tile PS -,,)
acquire the necessary real estate interest needed for the project as well as any 0&:N-1 nz_ded in ts_e
future.
5. UTILITY RELOCATION. There are several utilities that cross Little Sugar Creel: that
be in the zone of construction activities for this p" r'o1-ect. The utili include wate_ lines, gas
lines, and sanitary sewer lines. Gas and water lines cross the creek at road«.-av bridges and a:.-
attached to the bridges. Although bank stabilization activities will not require adjustments or
relocation of these utilities, coordination will be required with the owning agencies to insure thai
conflicts do not develop.
b. EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS. There are no existing Federal Projects located «-ithia
the reach of this proposed project.
7. DISPOSAL SITES. The Project Sponsor owns several disposal sites in the project area that
were provided as an item of cooperation for previous Federal projects. Therefore, the PS is not
eligible to receive any credit for the value of any disposal site utilized for this project, or for any
0 incidental cost related thereto.
3
• 8. ENNIMONMF,NTAL IMPACT. Tlie USAED. Wilmington District has conducted an
Environmental Assessment, EA. The EA is made part of the main report and is identified as
Appendix A.
9. WETLAND CONCERNS. Wetlands will not be adversely affected by this project nor v,-III
there be any mitigation requil,enlents.
10. REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION. The requirements for lands, casements. relocations,
right-of-,vay, and disposal areas (LERRD's) will require the project sponsor acquiring sufficient
real estate interest through temporary construction easements and a perpetual channel
improvement easement- The \vidth of the perpetual channel improvement easement varies along
the proposed project area, as does the temporary work area easement. It is acknowledged that the
PS has a real estate interest in some of the properties that are located along the proposed project
reach. It is anticipated that no structures will be effected by the per?tual channel improvement
easement or by the temporary work area easement. Any staging areas that may be needed will be
located within the temporary work area easement as well as the county-owned park-.
11. PROPERTIES AFFECTED. There are approximately eighty-one (81) tracts that may be
affected by the proposed project. Little Sugar Creek flows through residential, commercial, and
industrial areas. The zoning of the properties that are located within the reach of this proposed
project include, single family residential uses of R-17 and R-22 and the Park Road Shopping
Center of B-1, General Business usage. In addition, Park Road Elementary,is located in R-4
zoning between Reece Drive and Hillside Avenue. Freedom Park is located in R-4 zoning from
Princeton Avenue to the end of the project reach.
• 12. P.L. 91-646 RELOCATION. There are no relocations associated with this project.
4
• 13. GOVERN?INIENT-ONVNED PROPERTY. There are no government owned properties
located xvithin the project area.
14. MINERAL RIGHTS. There are no known mineral rights.
15. VIEWS OF THE SPONSOR. Mecklenburg County has participated in the planning and
formulation of the current plan for this project and has expressed strong support for the project.
16. ACQUISITION SCHEDULE. The PCA is scheduled to be executed by SAD 01 December
2000. The eighteen-month acquisition of Real Estate by the PS will begin after the PCA has been
signed: therefore. Real Estate is to be certified by 01 July 2002. Real Estate can not be certified
until the PS has acquired and/or provided sufficient real estate interest in all properties that xyill be
affected by the proposed project. Once certified, the sixty- (60) day advertisement for
construction will take place.
s
17. PROPOSED ESTATES. According to E.R. 405-1-12-9(6), the pyoferred acquisition interest
for an ecosystem restoration project is fee. However, an easement estate may be used if deemed
appropriate based on the extent of the project and if the estates provide sufficient interest that is
needed for the operation of the project. A channel improvement estate is sufficient due to the
design of the project encompassing minor channel work, such as the building of fish habitats and
planting of vegetation along the creek bank. The PS believes that channel improvement
easements, rather than fee simple, will be much more receptive by the property owners. The
project does not include erection of any structures nor changing the channel. alignment. The
estates that are being recommended for this project are perpetual channel improvement easements
and temporary work area easements (See Exhibits "B" & "C'). For Authorization for Entry for
0 Construction and Attorney's Certificate of Authority see Exhibit "D".
5
• IS. REAL ESTATE ESTIMATE. The estimated real estate costs include land values and
federal as well as non-federal administrative costs. The land costs that are applied to this project
are comprised of the temporary work area easements that will be required for the project- No land
cost was placed on the perpetual easement areas due to the off setting benefits wined by the
proposed project.
The acquisition cost is broken into two parts, federal administrative cost and no:-4 Jeral
administrative cost. The federal administrative cost will cover the cost to over see the PS reai
estate acquisition activities to insure that acquisition is within P.L. 91-646 complia nc-_ i i1C 110n-
federal administration cost is the estimated administration cost for the Iocai sponsor to acOuire ail
real estate interest for the project; this includes surveys, appraisals, title e%-idence. negotiations.
and closings.
• A 25% contingency is applied to the estimated total of t)a? items. Foilov 1",12 is a
„
breakdown of the cost that is associated with the acquisition of Real Estate for this project. For
the Code of Accounts, See Exhibit "E".
A. Lands $105,705.00
Temporary Construction Easements
3.11 acres @ $33,988.75 / per acre
Perpetual Channel Improvement Easements
11.23 acres @ $0.00
B. Improvements $0.00
@ C. Mineral Rights $0.00
6
• D. Damages SO.00
E. Utility Relocations 50.00
F. P.L. 91-646 Relocation Costs SO-00
G. Acquisition Cost - Admin Cost (81 Parcels) 5230,850.00
(Federal 528,350)
(Dion-Federal 5202,500)
H. Project Cooperation A<,reement SO
Sub-Total S336,555.00
Contingencies (25%) 584,135.75
Total Estimated Real Estate Cost S420,69 ;
ROUNDED S42:5,000
•
7
• Assessment of Non-Federal Sponsor's
Real Estate Acquisition Capability
I_ Leoal Authority:
a. Does the sponsor have legal authority to acquire and hold title to real property for
project purposes? YES
b. Does the sponsor have the power to eminent domain for this project? YES
c. Does the sponsor lla\7e "quick-take' authorit;- for this project? NO
d. Are any of the lano!lntcrests in the land required for this project located outside the
sponsor's political boundary" :N_O
e. Are am, of the lands interests in land required for the project o%vned by an en.it., .hose
property the sponsor cannot condemn? NO
II. Human Resource Requirements:
a. Will the sponsor's in-house staffrequire training to become familiar xv'ih the real estate
requirements of Federal projects including P.L. 91-646. as amended? YES
b. If the answer to Il.a. is eves".. has a reasonable plan been developed to provide suci
training? Plan will be developed and coordinated with the Project Sponsor. No Relocations are
anticipated.
c_ Does the sponsor's in-house staff have sufficient real estate acquisition experience to
meet its responsibilities for the project? YES
d. Is the sponsor's projected in-house staffing level sufficient considering its other "vork
load, if any, and the project schedule? YES
e. Can the sponsor obtain contractor support if required in ately fashion? YES
f. Will the sponsor likeiv request USAGE assistance in acquiring real estate? NO
III. Other Project Variables:
a. Will the sponsor's staff be located within reasonable proximity to the project site? YES
b. Has the sponsor approved the project/real estate schedule/milestones? Milestones are
currentl>> being developed.
IV. Overall Assessment:
a. Has the sponsor performed satisfactory on other USACE projects? AAA
b. With regard to the project, the sponsor is anticipated to be: highly capable/fully
capable/moderately capable/marginally capable/insufficiently capable. FULLY CAPABLE
•
8
• V. Coordination:
a. Has this assessmcnt been coordinated with the sponsor? YES
b. Does the sponsor concur with this assessment? YES
Prepared by:
,.I. Kexin Ambrose'
Realty' Specialist
Reviewed and approved by:
is
•
9
Chief. Real Estate Division
End of Project
-` North of Freedom Park

-
7
1

Beginning of Project
Brandywine Road

c-?

Exhibit A
•
8. C ??\j7E 4pROV_?'\T EASEMENT.
nernetual and assianaole right ana easem=.
a ress
one-rate, and naintair channel improvement C•"_, =_ Ena
(the land described in Schedule F) (Tracts ros. }
for the purposes as authorized by the Act of Co n__ s- aWpro er?
including the right to clear, cut, fell re_::ove
and disnose of anv and all timber, trees, underbrus nuildir_c
• imnrovemients and/or other obstructions t?ereTro to exca:-ate-
dredge, cut away, and remove any or al! 116-f said land a!? place
be : er u_. %=.s as -a_
thereon dredge or snoil material; and for sac'-
i*,prGvc resEr.-i,^.;,
required in connection with said work of
however, to the owners, their heirs and a c;cnc all such _is_ts a G
privileges as may be used without interfering thl cr abr_dgi t o
rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to exiszinQ
easements. for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads
and pipelines.
I*
Exhibit B
0
15. TEMPORARY WORK ARE= r a S _ _- M%i`_,
te_Ti1DOrarv easeme'z and r' _t-O--Wav in, on, over a across
(the land described in- Sc_e`nle (Tracts Nos. and ),
Tor a Deriod not to excee'-_i beci'zinc Cate
possess-l0_1 OL the land _s Gran._e a to the United States, for ;-se by
the United States, its -_prese _zatijJes, agent-S, a_nc, c0' tr_=czors as
a (borrm area) {C:Orr. area; -__c1Udj na the ? ch7 to {DOrrc - a_1C/cr
deposit fill, SpOi1 a d ..aste mater_al ?__?re0a} (move, Sc rc and
re--move ea-ainment and s ??lieS, and erect aim ra-move t_mpc_arv
•
o _

Exhibit C

•
F.PF=NDTX 12-P
C)Tivx_Z ...0\ OR ENTRY FOR ?OivS?= IO
cCC.- -
DG.^ Cc CE=L__% znaz Lne ..as
L:1_ .y'?-ea_C=e_Lv _nLerE5L5 _e=i ea C Lne DeDc_L'.:e-_ 'o= L^e t^V, c=!C
other%;'_5°_ _5 .eSLee wit 5 3___C_e L L=_le ana" _nzeres-z ic:1C5, L., 5 ==O=L
-ere--, c_LCC__cE' zhe L°_Dc:=en': C= he P= ,.v, _:._° ace =-r e: =:ovees c:nC
?n°• v --'f` ^?° - _ ? _ c5 5eL _..___. __. LiiE _ _c.:5 c_^_C
c7E''4_=C=L=c::c _^.°1C L-_e ?. _!=y :.o=s

=v.

iT 0?y\E° _ Cam..----C=--- O_n j//
(name) , /t?rle C_` ^2: :!'°') C. !lam°_
pF ^C.- =n<C_ 1 , CE=L_LV haz /'7cme c+)y nc5
cllLrc__Ly -c __anz zhe above P-utho21Zct10n for E.^.L=V; -7cL 5=_a ruLhcriZcL_o-
=Cr 7= v 5 =xecllLeC DV LS:e D_cner duly cuzho:==ec C==_CE and thc% zhe
Auz C__-_=L_.,.. =Cr =.7L_L' _5 _n Sll_Zicze^-L fo-n1 L_ =c'L he cLL 0:1tcal n .?E_°__._
szazet.
V:. 1LC ^.V S.C.':cL i=E as _-or fn2m _ -
dav 0-f
-n-_, v

•
_2-=-_
Exhibit D
CODE OF ACCOUNTS
FEDERAL NON-FEDERAL CONTINGENCIES TOTALS
01A PROJECT PLANNING
Other - S -
Project Cooperation Aereemem
01AX Contingencies (25%) S S - S - S -
Subtotal S S - S -
01B LANDS AND DAMAGES
01640 Acq/Review of PS S 28,350.00 S 7,087.50 S 35,437.50
01820 Acquisition by PS S - S 202,500.00 S 50.625.00 $ 253,125.00
01 BX Contingencies (25%) S S -
Subtotal S 28,350.00 $202,500.00 557,712.50 $288,562.50
01H AUDIT
011-110 Real Estate Audit S - S - S - S -
X Contingencies (25%) S S = S = 5 =
Subtotal S S , S S
01R REAL ESTATE LAND PAYMENTS
01 R1 B Land Payments by PS S S 105,705.00 S 26,426.25 S 132,131.25
01 R21B PL91-646 Ass't Payment by PS S $ - S - $ -
01 R2D Review of PS $ - $ - $ - $ -
01.RX Contingencies (25%) S - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal $ - $ 105,705.00 $ 26,426.25 $ 132,131.25
TOTALS S 28,350.00 S 308,205.00 $ 84,138.75 $ 420,693.75
ROUNDED TO $425,000

Exhibit E
•
APPENDIX B
DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
n
U

A-1
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK - AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
• DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project study area extends from Tyvola Road northward upstream along
Little Sugar Creek to just downstream of the East Boulevard Bridge. For
report reference purposes, stream stationing has been defined for the project,
with 0+00 Little Sugar Creek located at the Tyvola Road Bridge. The project
consists of providing features for both Aquatic Ecosystem restoration and
stream bank stabilization which reflects a more environmentally-sensitive
approach which includes less use of "hard" structural improvements wherever
possible, and more emphasis on "soft" or "green" solutions, and targets the
dual goals of maintaining aquatic habitat while stabilizing the stream banks.
Primary focus for stream bank stabilization will be the severely eroded banks
between Brandywine Road and the East Boulevard Bridge. Instream aquatic
habitat restoration measures will be utilized between Tyvola Road and
Brandywine Road as well as the remaining reaches within the project study
area
PAST CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS
In several areas, remedial or emergency slope repairs in the form of riprap
slope protection have been installed to alleviate bank erosion and sloughing
and protect development which has encroached to the top of bank:` Riprap slope
protection was placed between stations 88+80 and 92+20 along the west bank and
between stations 89+10 to 92+20 along the east bank. South of Princeton
Avenue Bridge both the east and west bank have been stabilized with riprap
slope protection. Riprap slope protection extends approximately 400 feet
downstream on the west bank and approximately 300 feet downstream on the east
bank. A 'stone retaining wall has been constructed along the west bank between
stations 126+20 and 127+10.
FIELD INVESTIGATION OBSERVATIONS
A. General Observations
Field reconnaissance of the project was conducted during periods of base flow
to investigate site conditions and collect information for the purpose of
designing stream bank stabilization protection and habitat
enhancement/restoration measures. Bank erosion was observed to be present
throughout the reach, particularly at abrupt transitions (e.g., sharp bends,
and bridges). For the most part, erosion at the toe of slopes was the primary
mechanism of bank failure.
B. Reach-Specific Observations
For discussion purposes, the project area has been broken down into
identifiablerreaches or segments. These reaches, in order from downstream end
to upstream end, are as follows:
1. Tyvola Road to Park Road (1920 LF)
2. Park Road to Woodlawn Road (5240 LF)
3. Woodlawn Road to Brandywine Road (730 LF)
1
4. Brandywine Road to Hillside Road (2278 LF)
• 5. Hillside Road to Princeton Avenue (2793 LF)
6. Princeton Avenue to East Blvd. (4152 LF)
(1) Brandywine Road to Hillside Avenue:
Gas line crossing creek and attached to underneath upstream side of Brandywine
bridge. West bank slightly vegetated with slope surface eroded and irregular
with occasional gullies present. East bank eroded. Debris consisting of
broken pieces of concrete slabs, bricks, pavement, etc. is dumped along west
bank from station 83+50 to 86+00. East bank severely eroded from station
83+00 to 84+00 and is unstable from station 84+00 to 86+00. Rock outcrop
along east bank from station 85+90 to 86+60.
Pipe outfalls are located near the following locations:
Station Size Type Bank Notes
83+40 36" CMP west
83+55 8" CMP east
87+10 36" CMP west
88+00 36" -CMP east
88+36 15" CMP east
94+00 24" RCP east (1)
97+70 36" RCP east (2)
(1) Concrete apron extending from top of bank to toe of slope. Severe
erosion along bank on both sides of concrete.
(2)3011-36" RCP with headwall.
• West bank with riprap side slopes from station 88+80 to 92+20.
East bank with riprap side slopes from station 89+10 to/92+20.
Severe bank erosion and sloughing both sides from riprap slope area upstream
to Hillside Avenue bridge.
Nearby pedestrian bridge is 5' wide constructed with steel and has a steel
truss handrail.
(2) Hillside Avenue to Princeton Avenue:
Bank sloughing both sides upstream Hillside Avenue Bridge to about station
107+00. Culvert with headwall on west bank at station 109+40. Bank sloughing
west bank from station 114+00 to 116+00. Severe bank sloughing both sides
upstream of ditch outfalls on both sides of creek. 42" concrete encased
sewerline crosses west side ditch restricting flow to creek and causing
flooding to adjacent property. 18" sewerline follows just east of the 42"
sewerline. West bank with riprap side slopes from station 125+50 to 126+50.
West bank with stone retaining wall from station 126+20 to 127+10. East bank
with riprap side slopes from station 127+30 to bridge. Sewer line crossing
and attached underneath bridge on downstream side. Gas line crossing and
attached underneath bridge on upstream side.
(3) Princeton Avenue to East Boulevard (Freedom Park):
18" RCP with headwall on west bank upstream bridge at Station 130+30. 721, RCP
with headwall on east bank upstream bridge at Station 130+75. Existing
concrete dain with gates located just upstream of Princeton Avenue. Structure
has three radial gate openings with one gate stuck in the closed position.
Structure and gates are no longer functional. Channel upstream of structure
to East boulevard is lined with concrete and grouted riprap with occasional
2
stone retaining wall. Three pedestrian bridges are located within the park.
• The first one located just upstream of dam structure. The second pedestrian
bridge has an 8' concrete deck and is located just upstream of the Freedom
Park stream restoration project near station 150+15. The third pedestrian
bridge is located near the little league fields at the northern end of Freedom
Park near station 164+15.
C.
HYDROLOGY
The Little Sugar Creek watershed modeling project was accomplished using HEC-2
and completed under contract with the City of Charlotte by Ogden Environmental
and Engineering Services, Inc. The HEC-2 model study started about 800 feet
downstream of the Tyvola Bridge and extends upstream of Little Sugar Creek for
approximately 11.0 miles. Within the project limits, the drainage area
encompasses approximately 16 square miles at the upstream limit and
approximately 41 square miles at the downstream limit of the project. Output
from the HEC-2 analysis included water surface profiles, depth of flow, and
channel velocities along various reaches within the project limits for six
flood frequencies. Based on data developed in this study, a composite runoff
curve number for the drainage area contributing to the project reach is
estimated to be 80-85, indicating an imperviousness of approximately 60 to 70
percent. Because of this high degree of imperviousness, the watershed
experiences quick response to storm runoff, which translates to rapid
increases in stream flows. No input data was available for the reach of
Little Sugar Creek just downstream of the study model area. Prior to final
design of plans and specifications these reaches will be analyzed. For design
purposes, the 2-year flood flows were used in conjunction with field
observations to determined the necessity, extent, and type of the toe
protection.
A summary of the estimate of peak flood flows developed in the modeling study
"is presented below:
Little Sugar Creek Flood Flows
•
2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
Tyvola Rd. 2379 5967 7998 9670 11,203 15,359
Confluence* 2516 6183 8127 9765 11,344 15,413
Park Rd. 2109 4572 5496 6137 3702 8299
Woodlawn 2130 4571 5465 6098 6651 8238
Brandywine 2127 4576 5456 6097 6661 8291
Hillside Av. 2114 4551 5419 6062 6632 8265
Princeton 2011 4337 5190 5815 6381 7900
East Blvd. 1629 3490 4236 4740 5266 6657
See plates PF-1 and PF-2 for stream profile and water surface profiles for
peak flood flows within the project limits.
A summary of the stream velocities for the 2-year flood as computed by the
modeling study is presented below:
* - Little Sugar-Briar Creek confluence
Little Sugar Creek 2-year Stream Velocities
3
Station Velocity
From fps)
•
0+00 15+20 5-6
16+45 21+34 4-5
22+85 38+84 3-4
40+84 69+58 4-5
71+28 72+48 5-6
73+48 77+47 3-4
78+96 79+33 4-5
80+55 119+78 3-4
121+85 127+27 2-3
128+54 129+12 4-5
130+65 134+82 3-4
137+14 139+15 4-5
141+16 145+12 5-6
146+39 147+65 6-7
148+87 153+94 5-6
155+42 170+36 4-5
The 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year flood events are generally confined within
the stream banks. The stream velocities for 10-year and 25-year flood events
generally were within the same range as the 2-year flood event.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Two general types of bank stabilization techniques: conventional bank
armoring and soil bioengineering. Bank armoring techniques consist primarily
of riprap. Bank armoring will be used at bank sections subject to significant
erosion forces, toe of bank slopes, and where facilities are threatened by
bank instability. These techniques provide limited habitat benefits, but can
be supplemented to be somewhat responsive to changes it/stream characteristics
and replace significant habitat deficiencies. Incorporating vegetation such as
''joint plantings into the riprap can improve the appearance, strength, and
habitat qualities of bank armoring techniques. In places where severe bank
sloughing has occurred, a vegetated geogrid reinforced fill soil
bioengineering technique will be constructed similar to Typical Section 6
shown on the drawings.
A 2-year design flood was used for determining the extent and limits of the
toe protection. Toe protection will consist of placing a 18" thick layer of
stone (riprap) over geotextile along stream banks where stream velocities were
expected to become erosive or exceed four (4) feet per second. Stone toe
protection will placed on the banks to the 2-year flood elevation for reaches
where the stream velocities were in the range of 5-6 feet per second. Along
reaches where the stream velocities range was 4-5 feet per second, the stone
toe protection will be placed to distance of approximately six (6) feet above
the stream bottom or-to an elevation which is just above the normal stream
flow. Soil bioengineering techniques in the form of a coconut-fiber roll will
be used as toe protection along reaches where the 2-year flood stream
velocities were less than four (4) feet per second. Full bank slope
protection will be placed on both banks for a distance of 100 feet upstream
and/or downstream of the street crossings where bank erosion, sloughing and
scour were present as evident by field investigations. Full bank slope
protection.will stabilize these bank areas as well as protect the particular
structure at the street crossing.
4
• Soils bioengineering techniques have been successfully utilized to solve bank
erosion and instability problems. These techniques generally attempt to
imitate the natural stream bank protection that has been lost or damaged
through the use of plants as their main structural component. They provide
many ecological benefits to the stream, including cover, shade, and soil
improvements.
The timing of construction of stream bank stabilization and in-stream habitat
improvement projects is critical to their success. Cuttings can be installed
only during dormant periods (late fall to early spring). Native plant species
are recommended for use in vegetative stabilization. The use of
bioengineering bank stabilization techniques may be limited by light
requirements to the selected plant species. In locations with an extensive
riparian tree cover, sunlight may not adequately penetrate the tree cover to
allow plants to establish along the stream bank.
Bioengineering, bank armoring, and habitat improvement elements suitable for
application to the Little.. Sugar Creek project are listed below.
Bank Stabilization Aquatic Habitat
Bioengineering Bank Armoring Improvement
Erosion Control Fabric Riprap Boulder Cluster
Live Stakes Vegetated Geogrid Stream Deflectors
Joint Plantings Bench Cut Cross Vanes
Rock Vanes
"J" Hook Vanes
Rock Weirs
REMMENDED IlyPROVENENTS
A specific, but flexible, set of recommended improvements has been developed
to stabilize the stream and thereby achieve the goals and objectives of the
project, to the extent practical. These improvements utilize bank
stabilization and habitat restoration elements discussed in the previous
section. The improvements to the creek consist of work on the banks and in-
stream habitat structures. There are sections of the stream that have already
been stabilized and no further work is needed.
The bank improvements generally consist of the installation of riprap at the
toe of slopes to mitigate.the increased erosive forces from more frequent
flooding events. Vegetative-based erosion control measures in the upper part
of the channel sections that are subject to less frequent flooding and erosive
forces are recommended to provide a more environmentally-sensitive solution
that tends to blend into the natural environment. There are certain locations
that will require full slope bank armoring, particularly at street crossings
and storm drain outfalls.
Recommended in-stream habitat improvements generally consist of boulder
clusters, cross vanes, rock vanes, "J" hook vanes, rock weirs, and stream
deflector weirs in the streambed to enhance stream complexity and create
stable stream cover.conditions. Additionally, vegetative stabilization
associated frith bank stabilization efforts will also provide habitat benefits.
e
5
DESCRIPTION OF STABILIZATION/ RESTORATION IMPROVEMENTS
• Bank stabilization improvements are all designed to mitigate the ongoing bank
erosion and habitat degradation occurring in Little Sugar Creek. The
improvements consist of:
(1) Riprap blanket and erosion control fabric on existing slope
(2) Riprap blanket on full slope
(3) Coconut fiber roll with erosion control fabric on existing slope
(4) Bench cuts with tree plantings.
(5) Vegetated geogrid on existing eroded slopes.
The locations of recommended bank treatments throughout the project reach are
shown on the site plans and are further broken down by the east and west
banks. Also included on this plan view are locations identified where no
improvements/modifications to the stream are needed. Bank stabilization
improvements shall also include placing riprap slope protection at all storm
drain outfalls. Refer to typical details of pipe outlet protection for storm
drain outfalls.
Vegetated geogrids consists of alternating layers of live branch cuttings and
compacted soil with natural or synthetic geotextile materials wrapped around
each soil lift. Vegetated geogrids can be used to rebuild, vegetate,
stabilize and reinforce severely eroded streambanks.
Bench cuts can be used to stabilize the streambank by increasing the stream
flow conveyance area to accommodate the higher flows from infrequent storm
• events. The elevation of the bench cuts will be set at a depth of water
representing the 2-year water surface profile. In reacYpes with shallow bank
heights, the elevation of the bench cuts will be set at a depth of 3' below
the 2-year water surface profile. All bench cuts will be vegetated with plants
and trees,-which can tolerate frequent flooding.
DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT RESTORATION IMPROVEMENTS
Coconut Fiber Roll consists of a cylindrical structure composed of coconut
husk fibers bound together with twine woven from coconut material to protect
slopes from erosion while trapping sediment, which encourages plant growth
within the fiber roll. The coconut fiber roll will be placed along the toe of
the streambank where the stream velocity is expected to be less than 4 feet
per second. The coconut fiber roll will be used in conjunction with erosion
control fabric and live stakes to stabilize the stream bank and help restore
the streambank vegetation.
Stream deflector weirs consist of riprap weir which faces upstream and extends
from the streambank into the stream at an angle of 24 degrees to the
streambank. The top level of the weir shall be below the normal base flow
water level. The weirs will be used to promote habitat restoration for the
reach between Tyvola Road and East Boulevard and to provide stream
stabilization measures along the outside of bends.
The rock weir consist of rocks or boulders approximately 41x3'x2' placed
across the stream. The top level of the weir shall be about 1' above the
normal base flow water level. The weir will be used to create a shallow pool
6
and promote habitat restoration for an area within Freedom Park where a
• natural ben ch has formed from sediment deposits.
Cross vanes which consist of rocks or boulders approximately 4'x3'x2' placed
across the stream. The top level of the cross vane weir shall be below the
normal base flow water level. The cross vane will be used to keep the flow in
the center of the stream and create a scour hole to help promote habitat
restoration along the stream.
Rock vanes and "J" hook vanes consist of rocks or boulders approximately
4'x3'x2' which faces upstream and extends from the streambank into the stream
at an angle of between 20-30 degrees to the streambank. The top level of the
vanes shall be below the normal base flow water level. The vanes spans one-
half to two-thirds of the stream width and can be used to deflect flows away
from the bank and more toward the center of the stream. Rocks in the vanes are
not spaced except in the "J" section of the "J" hook where the rocks are
spaced one-half the rock width.
Boulder clusters will be used to supplement existing areas of stream riffles
created by natural rock outcrops in streambed. Boulder clusters consist of a
group of boulders (7-8) approximately 21-3' in diameter placed in a particular
pattern within the channel to provide cover, create scour holes or areas of
reduced velocity. Exact locations are to be determined by stream biologists
during design phase.
Existing stream bank cover provided by trees will be preserved by not removing
trees unless absolutely necessary. Trees will be planted along the top of the
bank, bench cuts, and streambanks to provide additional shading for the
stream. /
Enhancement of stream cover will be provided through live stakes and joint
plantings and vegetative cover components of bank stabilization improvements.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Construction of the improvements recommended for Little Sugar Creek will
require work in the stream, as well as along the top of banks, primarily due
to limited access. Diversion coffer dams for limited, temporary de-watering
of active in-stream work areas and for additional sediment and erosion control-
may be utilized on a case-by-case basis. Rubber-tired equipment is generally
recommended to minimize disturbance to streambed and adjacent areas. Although
it is recognized that these construction considerations will impose some
short-term stream habitat degradation, the long-term benefits from the project
will far outweigh these temporary impacts. All excavated material must be
disposed of in an approved disposal area located outside the project limits
and furnished by the local sponsor.
SEDIb1ENT AMID EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
Applicable measures described in the Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual for the state of North Carolina will be incorporated in the
final plansiand specifications. These measures will include but not limited
to establishing permanent and temporary vegetation, installing erosion.control
7
fabric on slopes, stabilizing temporary construction entrances, temporary
• stream crossings.
PROJECT EASEMENTS
Construction access throughout the project reach is limited or restricted.
Significant development has occurred along both banks of the creek and, in
some cases, right up to the top of the bank. There are only four street
crossings in the 1.7-mile project reach, further limiting access to the creek.
Right of way limits for the project will extend 25 feet beyond the existing
top of bank or slope intercept point in graded areas for working bank and 10
feet on the non-working bank. Rights of way will be used for project
construction and maintenance access and for any landscaping measures. The
working bank will be the primary bank for construction and access to the
stream. The working bank will be cleared where necessary for construction
access. Additional areas for Contractor's temporary storage and construction
facilities will be required. Possible locations for the Contractor's
temporary storage and construction facilities are shown on the site plans.
STRUCTURES AND UTILITY CROSSINGS
Four manmade structures cross Little Sugar Creek within the project limits.
Roadway bridge crossings exist at Brandywine Road, Hillside Avenue, and
Princeton Avenue. The Woodlawn Road crossing consists of a four-barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert. Numerous utilities that will be in the zone
of construction activities also cross the creek throughout the length of the
project. These include water lines, gas lines, and sanitary sewer lines. Gas
and water lines cross the creek at roadway bridges and are attached to the
• bridges. Most of the utilities crosses over the creek. Although the bank
stabilization activities will not require adjustments o? relocation of these
utilities, coordination will be required with the owning agencies to ensure
that no conflicts develop. The location of known utility crossings are shown
on the plans.
•
8
•
•
C

u?i ow o
r?
o
5 625 ________ ________.--__-.._-__,_-_-_._- ---.__-------_-._-_..__.-__--_-_,.____-.--.-.__--_.-____,_-.----____°'' wz
_..-..-.--i__-_i____-,-__-,-__..L _.__..___
- um-
a r
r r r r r r r ?a a
5
a
620 ___- -.,__-_ . - -.__-- ____?_.._ _ _. ___ ___ ._. ..
'500-YEAR 'STORM PROFILE

615 _ __ _.. . - . _-- _
2-YEAR STORM PROFILE
-
610 --------- -- -- ---------- ------------- -- '----- • --------- ------ ------ ------------ - ------, -- ----?-- --,----- -, -,---
1
-

65?
------ ----
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - -
-- --
'
i
-
-
I
SYRE
STING A 4.E .
.FifI -- _ - - -
- - - r - _ . ..
'
600
___

----------
_____________
-
-.___ _____ ____'- -

_r__T_
- - _
_____________
- - - -
S5 - - - - - - - - - - -- ' - --- '--- ' - ------
- ------- - - - - -------------' --------- -- ' _---- ----- - - - -
-
- - - - ---- N - -
--o------ - .. - --------- --
s m -
m m. c P c O?
m m c m m c c m m P -
O O? O' O G
O c ? .
590 50 127+00 127+50 128+00 128+50 129+OC 129+50 130+00 13C+50 131+00 3P5C 132+oc 132+50 133+00 133+50 'ti4+00
5 Q0+00 120+50 121+00 2+50 122+00 122+50 123+00 123+50 124+00 124+50 125+00 125+50 126+00 126+
65
:j
6101 . . .. . . . . . . .. .... . . 2-YEAR $Tow PPOPIL£_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _' _ _
r
___
. ..._
__,__.___
?..____..__,___. _.____... _.__?_... ____., ____ _- _______-,_.....____-
,
__________, ____._____-___ ?

? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sao - - -
-- - -
EXISTING STREAU P70 I E - -
-- -- -- - -- -
-
-
-
- - - - - ----- - _-- --
595 ` - ---- - "--- -- -- -- - - - - - - -- - ? - --
-- .__ _
-- .' - .. _
_
_.. __ _' _ .. - - -
m m m c m? m m ? m m ?, ?ry
590
+00 108+50 709+00 109+50 110+00 0+50 11+00
1 11+50 112+00 12+50 13+00 113.50 114«00 94+50 15+00 115+50 116+00 116+50 117+00 17+50 88+00 118+50 15 0, 43+50 120+00 E 6
106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50
08

11 I ?

J
620I1II

N5 . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Q?.O _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _

; _ . . _ _ ; _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _
r-_---,___________________________'____.-__._..____i_..--f
- - - - - - -
?--------- -- --- r --- - ' - -- ---- . - - ?---- --- SOG-YERSTORM ROFIL-r - - - ---- + - --- ,----- - - - -=aru, -

?

t

i
v
w0
1
605 2_YEARbTOR X01 - - - - - - - - -
r r 1 zw0
________________ ___ ____ _____
-.__
____
r z
z
6W ,
__ _.._ _.__._____. --__,
_
_
_________________ ___________ _ _________ ._._-..__?____, -. p
J
z
r EXIS?INS STREAM' PfiOFILE ---------------- r --_.-_ __.__ _-_'__-.. _
. ___ _ ____
____ ___ _.._- ? - r --' -T
0
c95 , X
2

590
o_ -
_----P'- _ _ N- _ _ - - - - - - - - - - --- P-----,----- = ---- = ------------' - -------------------- - - - - - - - - - ---- P?--------- - - - - - - - --- - - - ' - - - - - - - ----------
m o: m m m m
584
92,00 92+50 93+00 93+50 94+00 94+50 95+00 95+50 96+00 96+50 97+00 97+5C 98.00 98.50 99+00 99+50 ICO+00 150.50 0+00 01+50 102.00 102+50 103+OC 03+SC IC4+00 04+50 105+00 105.50 106 +OC
2 Nr W - OO
Z ____ _______.?______.._
Z
6201 -----?--?+ -36n _'---?--- " -___'-?---- " ----_-__.--•--...----'f-'--'----'?'----',.'----,--------'--?-•.'-i -----" '--?----------------'_.. __ f
00 ?? N J m
ZK rO _____r___ ____ ________ _____ __ ,_ _r_ CZ LL
F;5}___ _ ra..6_ ___ r ____ ____ ____ - ___ r____._r ._. _-- ___i _..___ _ _
o a 500-YEAR STORM RRCFILE I ¢ 0
'^ IBO?KEAR TORM 1'PRCF4€ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?` W d r
610 __ _ _________ ___ _ _____ _ _ ______ __
y> >w
- z
' 2-YEAR STORM PROFILE__'? ¢ n
2-YEAR STORM PROFILE co
r
____.____ r F
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ , _ _ _ _,_ _ _ _ .....
600 Q
? -_ ,...... {XISTING STREAM-PROFIL€ ? - _ ... ? . .
595 ............ . .... . . . ......... . .... . . . S _ _ . . _ . . . . . y _ _______,_______,_______.______T=____
59oF- -- - - ' -- - - - - - -- _ • - -- -- a - - --- , --- - - - --__..--- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - _ ..__
n ,? e v O?' D• _P O' v O _ n c' a' rn' ar rr v. c v. of . vir :f. N: vi
589 m m r' m m m `m' m' m °m' c' `n `m °m. c' °m' - m c. m m m m c m a m PLATE
78+00 78+5C 79+00 79+50 80+00 80+50 8H00 8+50 82+00 82+50 83+00 83+50 84+00 84+50 85+00 85+50 66+00 86+SC 67+00 87+50 88+00 88+50 89+00 89+50 90+oa 90+5o 91+00 91+5C 92+00 NUMBEP.
PF-I
SHEET 1 OF 2
La
Us Ari" Corp
et lnyinwn

i
61
o
No
_-________.____--_____._____-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
E35 - -__.____ _____ _________ _______.___-_ ____.-_____._ -
______________-
5 rd
63G ____,__._ _____-_____ __,__________r_____?_____ r__ _ __.. __? _________- _____.____ ?____?___._ __. _._FZ ___ _rr_____ __
PI W Ib
C -Y AR- STORM PROFI E _ _ _ _ _ _ _
625 - - - - - -
szC - -
2-YEAR TORM tlp FP_E - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - ----

515 t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___________
- - - -
______
- - - - - - - -
________
EXISTIriG STREAM PP^_l-=-- -----------

-- -- ___._
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----------+- -------r------
------------------- -----------------------
111

? 162+00 162+50 'S3+00 63-50 164+CG 164.5C i65+OC 165,50 766,oO 166+50 167+C0 57+50 i68+OC 168+50 169+CO 169+50 17C+00 170+50 171+00 17n50 172+CO !72+50 173+00
G
s }3;i
s s -
635 _____._____________________.____-._____1____-,-____.__-__.____-_____,.__________._____i_____,-____._.-__f_____i_____,______.___,___-_.__.__,_____1___..
_
630 _____;__-__r___ __________,__________r ___ ______--______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
--
625 - - - - -- - - - - - - - 500=YAR-S'CRM-PROFtE- _ - - - - - -- - - - - --- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - -
- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
62: __._ ____ _ ___ _____ ______ _ - _ _ _
2-YEAR STORM PROFILE z
_ _ - - _ _ - - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ sy¢
' ZU
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - ---
_ __ -- _ _ _ _____ -
XiSi1n STREAM ?RC.?L?
68J _ ____w_ _ ___ ____ _ _ - _____ __ _____ _ ___
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6G?'. - ___ _- __ ___ -- __ -- _ _ _- __ _ _ ___ _- _ Zpz
o' o P
ol o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 '¢o
60P p
148+00 I48+50 49+00 149+50 60+00 10+5C 15 DC 151+5C 152+00 52+50 53+00 153+5C i54+00 154+50 55+00 65-50 156+00 156+50 157+00 67+50 158+00 156+50 i59*00 159+5C 160+CC .60+50 .6I+00 161+50 162+00 I < o ?
r _
z
O p
O
630 _____. _.._ _ ______., ___ -__._ __ ___ ___ _______________.___ _-- _- ___ __ __,_ __. _ -? z N +
Y ? -. CI
___ ___ _ _ _ - __
E25 __ _ ___ ___ _ ____ __ ____ ____ r_ JQ _ O 0
6201 500-YEAR.S OAM PROP.E - - - - - - - - - - - -
m? Q +
----- - - - -- - w o
6!5 -------- 2--- - - - PROFILE------ ' _ __--' ------
-------------------- -----------------
_ - _ cX STMG 5 REAM pli?FlLE - -- ------- - -- - - --- - ------- - - - - - - - - _ -- -- -- <
_ __ ____
Epp ___ ____r_____--;_________ -- _________ _____ ___o ____ ____ __ ______________ ___ ___!___-o____-______
o o o c°' o o' o o o? o? o a' o o o a? o? o? o? a? o' 0 0 0 0 0
PLATE
5?P
134+50 135+00 135+50 136+00 136+56 .3 13750 138+00 i38+50 139+00 39+50 140+00 N0+50 I41+G0 141«50 142+00 142+50 143+00 143+50 144+00 144+50 145+00 145+50 146+00 146+50 147+00 147+50 48+00 JMBc3
34+00 N
PF-2
S,IEET 2 OF 2
fin
US A-7 Cary.
of Enpl-.
M9minq .. owlet
C7
APPENDIX C
SITE PLANS
0
i
A-1
•
•
•
F C H,
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
¦
I
Little Sugar Creek
¦
4 Aquatic Ecosyte
Av:
Restoratimon
Mecklenburg County
North Carolina
HAW ING INDEX
SHEET PLATE TITHE
1 X-1 COVER SHEET & DRAWING NOEX
2 P-1 ! GENERAL MAP STA 61.50 TO 166.33
! 3 ! P-2 GENERAL MAP STA 1.30 TO 61+50
4 P-3 TYPICAL SECTIONS
i 5 P-4 TYPiCPL DETAILS
6 P-5 TYPICAL ROCK VANE DETAILS 1
7 P-6 SI??' PLAN - STA 7937.61 TO STA 90.25
8 P-7 STE PLAN - STA. 90.25 TO 104.25
9 P-8 PLAN - STA. 104.25 i0 118.50
10 P-9 SITE PLAN - STA 118.50 TO 132.00 i
11 P-10 SITE PLAN - STA 132.00 TO 145.50
12 P-11 SITE PLAN - STA. 14550 TO 159.00
13 P-12 SITE PLAN - STA. 159.00 TO 171.35.84 i
K P-13 SITE PLAN - STA 2.00 TO 1400
15 P-14 SME PLAN - STA. 14.00 TO 28.40
16 P-15 SITE PLAN - STA 28-40 TO 44+25
17 P-16 SITE PLM - STh 44.25 TO 60+00
18 P-17 SfTE PLAN - STA. 60.00 TO 7570
us ? ca.p.
d Lp4wn
NI4+?p.i wrb
u
?o
ruZ
u N
'dN?zi
?11
•
0
•
•
•
6
E
i
i <x
I
i
i
I i
I r. I
- i LEGEND
I
!5S EXISTING SEWER LINE CROSSING (OVERHEAD)
i
l -w-;,- EXISTING WATER LINE CROSSING
EXISTING STREAM
EXISTING PAVED ROAD/STREET
EXISTING DITCH/CREEK
I
1
i
-l
? z Sr7?.

6
s
o U 3
YF- ? Y
4 J ? J
z
U li
O
Ow?
ZU
Zw0
Zoo
W ZNO
¢¢¢U
aUF
?N
J O
2 cc
wt ¢
u7 ? ?/0 I
W
o tli I
?Y V
w D
E
C
a
PLATE
C SCALE NUMBER
500 o z50 500 A" 1500 zoos P-2
(W FEET S SFEET 3 OF IS
US A, Cap
d Lggr.r.
wY.?q,n DLeb
SEE PLATES P-13 THRO F-17 FOR SITE PLAN
AND PROJFCT FEATURES.
•
•
•
I
i
i
RIGHT OF WAY
LIMITS (VARIES)
E NI
RIPRAP TYPIC
W/JOINT PLANTIN
TYPICAL SECTION
FULL RIPRAP BANK PROTECTION
p-3 NOT TO SCALE
EROSION CONTRO
FABRIC ('YPiCAL)
LITTLE SJBA4 CREEK STA 79.37.61 - STA 8025 (WEST 6MK)
RiGH' 0' WAY
HIV IS 'VAR?ES:.
2s'
IL - t
?-EXISTING
GROUND
RI^HT C- WAY
LIMITS ('DAR'ES) I
SEE
ERISTWG?? --GRIOLINO
RIPRAP TYPO;
W/JOINT PLA
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MAT. PER
MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS ON
EXISTING SLOPES WITH LIVE STAKING.
JOINT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLACE
BETWEEN RIPRAP STONE .
ei
RIPRAP TYPICAL
W/JOINT PLA')TiNGS
GEOTEX T ILE
4 \RIPRAP AND EP RCN CON`PCL PlaOI'
p NOT TO SCALE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA 8600 - 8880 (WEST BANK;
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA- 96.9& - 98+48 (WEST BANK)
L--
.E SUGAR CREEK STA 96.98 - 98.48 (EAST RANK;
RIGHT OF WAY
L.4ATS (VAR,IES1
10' 25'
EXISTING
EXIST ING--J 2STREAM BANK
GROLNO -?
NOTE 43 '. !? 2 Yk FAG^vC WSEL
EXISTING CHANNEL SCE
SLOPES LINED WITH CONCRETE 15i
AND GROUTED RPRA°. ACTUAL
THICKNESS IS UNKNOWN. CONTRA;--CF.
SHALL BE REOUIiEO TO REMOVE
CONCRETE Ate GROUTED RIPRAP
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE BENCH
CT AND REGRADE EXISTING SLOPES
` - ?--------
TYPICAL SECTION 7 TOE PROTECT"
7 BENCH T W/ TO PROTECTION (SEE NOTE)
P-3 NOT TO SCALE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 130<SC - 133.75 (WEST BANK)
RIGHT OF WAY
LIMITS (VARIES)
10'. 25'
I ?NO'El _
?-EXIS':ING
GROUND
IPRAP TYPICAL
JOINT PLANTINGS
..__ . _X TILE
TYPICftL SECTION - 2
2 ? FULL RIPRAP BANK PROTECTION
P 3 NOT TO SCALE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA 79.37.61- ETA 8025 (EAST BANKI
T"P CA;_ SECTION - 5
5 l;li RPKaP BANK PROTECTION
P-3 NOT TO SCh;E
LITTLE SJGAR, CREEK STA. 10050 - 101•66.02
LIT-LE SJG.kR CREEK STA 10215.90 - 103.15
NOTE (TOE PROTECTION)
EXISTING CONCRETE AND GROUTED RPRAP NOT SHOWN.
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PLACE ADDITIONAL
RPRAP ALONG ERODED AREAS OF THE TOE OF THE BANK
WHERE EXISTING CONCRETE AND GROUTED RIPRAP HAS
BEEN UNDERCUT BY THE E)OSTNG CHANNEL
R'GHT OF WAY
LIMITS (VARIES:
25
?StE W., i
EROSION i
CONTROL
FABRIC EX5i1NG
GROUND
L!V'F
STAKING
(TYP-) PLANT SPACING BASED
ON TYPE OF VEGETATION
ANC SITE CONDITIONS
eW ?
_ ?._ COCONUT
F ER RCL
T YPI'GAL SECTION - 3
3 \ EROSION CONTROL FABRIC W/LIVE STAKING
' P_3 NOT TO SCALE
L;T-LF sji;AR CREEK STA 80.25 - 89.10 (EAST BAN2
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA 9220 - 96.98
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK ST A, 9848 - 100.60
LITT E SUGAR CREEK STA 107.00 - 1-.4.00 (WEST BAIJK)
TT E S'JGAIR CREEK STA 107.00 _ 122.00 (EAST BA;,K)
LITTLE SUGAP CREEK STA 11£-CC - 120-30 (WEST BANK)
RI-7. 0% WAY
I LWIiS i4'iRES)
COP. TC" WRAP -?
a,CM-E PLANT -- ?- RE NOTE
CAI
US A- T corp.
d E vi.-
Wi.iqm Wh

LIVE BRANCH CUSTINCS
it EX!STING FALEC r
STREAMBANK ?
GEOTEXTLE WRA P A
-,-?- COMPACTED d
'- 1 BACKF!LL d : £ r
SLOCPoC
/ REM6ORCEME,
--S7CNEJSO4 u'X
50/50 BLEN; ? .?
__ _

- CLASS
'E" 2
c 3
d
Sim
TYPICAL SECTION - 5
6 BANK SLOUG-JiNG REPAIR

P-?
NOT TO SCALE A
L y
ITTLE S;DGAR CREEK SSA ;33,ti - 1C7-C0
' w?
!
.;t-00 - 116.00 (WEST BAN/,)
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA
"LE SUGAR CREEK S TA- .-313 125C5 (WEST BANK)

_.'TLE SUGAR CREEK 22.70 - 12650 (EAST BANK)
L_
iW¢
zoz
z
I
u
6
RIGHT OF WAY { I I
!! LIMITS
C' 25 ,
i
E
_ -------------------- Ex.'STING
Z
EXISTING STREAM BANK o
GRCUNC 2` I J p N
i 2
2 YR FLOOD WSEL oZ m
NOTE: G
EXIST 1,:
• CHANNEL SCE W
SLOPES LINED WITH CONCRETE G.3 '. ?? Flo ¦0 w I
ANC GROUTED RIPRAP. ACTUAL TOE PROTECTIONr-, a y .+
THICKNESS IS UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR l?jlm
SHALL. BE REQUIRED YO REMOVE
CONCRETE AND GROUTED RIP AP
WITHIN THE L"TS OF THE BENCH V
CT AND REGRADE EXISTING SLOPES
------------
TOE PROTECTION E p
(SEE NOTE) I a
TYPICAL SECTION - 8
8 N H CUT W/ T^ PROTECTION
P-3 NOT TO SCALE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 13595 - 138+50 (WEST BANK)
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK STA. 178.80 - 144.00 (WEST BANK)
NOTE: THE RHpR OF WAY LUTS SHALL BE ESTABLIS EO PLATE
FOR THE PROJECT AREA AS FOLLOWS NUMBER
WCWM BAH( - 25' FROM SLOPE INTERCEPT AND/OR
TOP OF EXISTNC SLOPE. P-3
tM-WORKNC SAW - 10' FROM SLOPE WTERCEPT AfOAOR SHEET 4 OF 18
TOP OF EIOSTNG SLOPE
0
•
•
6
Ei
4

A
i I
i
RIGHT OF WAY i
TOE 0= SLOPE
I
LIMITS
EXISTING TRiBOikRY
j
ISTREAM LIMITS
Ii CZ? W
z?
FLOW 40' >

N
3w
EROSION
CONTROL
FABRIC
?
I
PLAN
1 EXIST'NG STREAM OUTLET DETAc-S
P-4 NO- TO SCLE
Z
NCOOT CLASS IRIPRAP SHALL EXTEND
TO A HEIGHT OF T ABOVE THE NORMA'-
S?REAM FLOW LEVEL (H).
CLASS 1
R1TRAP ? ?^I
TOE OF SLOPE
ar4'???
CLASS I" HEIGHT (H) IS THE NORMAL
) '
RIPRAP -!
- STREAM FLOW LEVEL.
STREAM--I 2
I
`T
BOTTOM
I Zr S H.
EXISI
t_ _
f

GEOTEXTIJ

STREAM
DEFLECTOR
WEIRS (TYP.)

3 STREAM DEFLECTOR WEIR
P-4 NOT To SCALE
?OE OF SLOPE
Ow NOTES:BOULDER CLUSTERS

01, '.. BOULDER CLUSTERS (TYPJ SHtiL CONSIST Cr- 7-6 BOULDERS
PLACE IN GROUPS OF THREE BOULDERS SPACE V3 THE
--f`C• STREAM WIDTH APART.

2. BOULDER CLUSTERS SHALL BE PLACED DOWNSTREAM OF

- STREAM DEFLECTOR WEIRS, RCCK VANE STRJCTURES ANC
BOULCER - -
\?
) AT LOCATION AS SHOWN ON T,E PLANS. EACH BOULDER
' I TENS
'' ?z SHALL BE PLACED AND EMBEDDED INTO A 6" LAYER OF GRA EL
,. Y. J FGR A DISTANCE OF YSEYOND THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER OF EXISTING-.
EACH BOLL'-DER.
GROVN7 l

2
90:1LCER CLUSTERS R!PF.A'
NOT TO SCALE
OPPOSITE BANK RIPRAP
PROTECTION AS REQUIRED
1
I i
--- Ei5T1NC
ly9 -------- -- ? nwe
i
I
1 - RiCR
i?7PROX.
jrA'ER EEVR
EXG'NG CRIArii:-/
I ! 21 BOTTOM DOTER ROC-
;APPROX. IV3-`
I ? V
?4? ROCK WEIR SECTION STA. 152.15
I I p_4 NOT TO SCALE 3 4 -'
r ,OF.ANTnC
-RIPRAP
i0 EXTLE
ELEVATION VIEW

( 5 1 --iP OL - -CRO "CT
P 4 1' TO sDAE
--LOP OF E414K
LIVE STAKE / lONT PLANTING SPECIES I %
COMMON NAi4.E BOTANICAL NAME
BOX ELDER ACER NEGUNDO r- LIVE
, • . i STAKES
BLACK WILLGW SALIN .N9GRA • , • (TYP.)
SILKY DOGWOOD CORNUS AMOMUM • ,
ELDERBERRY ! SAMBUEUS CANADENSS? JOINT
PLANTING
(TYP.)
Ia1k
E ?
i
G 3
Ir 2
Is J
?c
!x?
0
IzoZ
w i
0

E I
LOWER UMIT OF LIVN? I
STAKES AND/OR g
PLANTING MEASURED 2'
VERTICALLY ABOVc T, i
OF S:,OPE.
TOE OF BANK c
=N
6 TYPICAL PLAN - ? W = w a
LZC- ?TAK!N. A" 0!ti7 P,ANILNF 3 I ?o
p.4 NOT TC SCALE I a" N
SLOPE
RPPRAP (EXIST
AND/OR NEW)
JOINT PLANTINGS - 3" DIA MLMMUM.
7 ? PICAL JOINT PLANTING
\lt-411 NOT TO SCALE
3"-4"-? -EXISTiNG
LINE SLOPE
/
sTAx E 2 -.5"
EROSION
CONTROL
FABRIC
LINE STAKES - 2" DIA I Id6YJM.
P TYPICAL UVE STAKE
P_4 NOT TO SCALE
PLAN Vf'W
PIPE OUTLET PROTECTION
w?
w
dti
IZ
a
x
40
(!S?_PIPE?
EXISTING
GROUND
CJ" EXi472,:C PE CSF -
YO ,;D R'.PRAP SLOPE
?
NOTES LINE STAKING ALl JC¢NT PLANTINGS: Z. w
!. LT1E STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON SLOPES TO
RECEIVE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC. E a

2. JOINT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ON SLOPES <
TO RECEVE RPRAP, EXISTING RPRAP SLOPES, AND
AS NOTED ON THE TYPICAL SECTIONS.
LINE STARES AND JOINT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLAITED
3 RATE
.
N STAGGERED ROWS WITH THE SPACING TO BE SITE NUMBER
SPECIFIC AND BASED ON TYPE OF VEGETATION E)OSTTNG.
4. JOINT PLM NG AND LIVE STAKE APPLICATK)NS SHALL BE P-4
AT LEAST 3 PLANT SPECIES WITH A 30X, 3OX, 4OX III( OF SHEET 3 OF IS
Tw Swcrs.
us e,, c?
d E qi-
w".-w
•
r
-01
EXISTING ROCK-
(APPROX.
6 4'x3'x29
-------- ------
EXISTING CHANNEL
BOTTOM
NORMAL
WATER LEVEL
\--FOOTER ROCK
(APPROX. 4x3'x?
CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL ROCK
P 5 NOT TO SCA E
cL.4h'
'Ec
RCc- t% ? k117
NOT, SPACE- ,
?= CRAti'S 72
2/3 C-STREA)A W,-7F1

C
i f

4 EXISTING
?.?CPANNcI /
/ 20 ??`
ROCK
(APPROX.
4'x3'X2')
r-NORMAL .'
' WATER LE}EL
' tT
°Q?
? Cyr
/ 6 STU,^
SCQ °
r
C
SC/ ?
°

----
-- fr'.' L L / .1
FOOTER a
NOTES
`f! ri I ?11'• ,? i; :?` ROCK ei i. ROCKS IN VAt E ARE
(
'
NO" SPAP,EG.
0
i
EXISTING CHANNEL
BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK Qr
a?
<'.ROCKc
_ M `J" BECTON ARE
(APPROX. 4' v3'x2') SPACED '/, ROCK WW'H,
3.STRu''TURRE SPANS
r
Y
2;3 0l STREAM WIOTn
3 CROSS SECTION''
2 7vP'CA "' r00v VN? "
P-? N0- 70 SCALE
l

i
AVOW
r cX!STIN'0 BkNU,
SLOP I
E yARIES
r
20-30 EkS ,

' I S
EXISTING I`?
CHANNEL a 20-30°
ROCK
(
PPROX
(-NORMAL o
A
.
4'x3'x2') WATER LE{FL r

' FOOTER
ROCK
I

J r
'

? r e

'
Or
'
J I 0 `? NOTE
y
`(I `
o ROCKS IN CROSS VANE
°
IRf NOT SPh:EO. NO

EXiSTING
CNNdE CAPS SHALL BE BETWEEN
?
BOTTOM DOTER ROCK THE ROCKS N THE CROSS
CROSS SECTION (APPROX. 4x3k2') i VAHE
PLAN
3 'PIA CROSS VAN
P 5 NOT TO SCALE

1
j
d FepYww?
II'I jil
Ijl?jl ?Z
j?Lf
I! I?
I
I
I'lll j ? YI
II
IF ?!r
I` e
? I
U I 3
I` '? J f
IE ?
_z
,.Z.j
7W?
I ;°Z {
6? Z
Irdr
20 z
NUS
j ?
I C
i?
I
Z
I
1 ? c) E ?
I 2E
z C W
°Z Z
u0 Q
4° >
ror C)
u
I Z. L 0 I
? w pc
re U J
u ? Q
0
a
PLATE
N(ABEA
P-5
SHEET 6 OF 76
F
•
•

4
i
?- rz
J I t o -.
Iq? ? to IP ; -
F• ? T '?x
:, ,? ,??? ?- ? ? ? ? - _ ? - - '• ? 612.4. ????.? - ? ? '?; -- o?•-?=???;??-??????
W3 PARK RON7•St10PPlJG CENTER
` L
jJ
o ' i
. .r=-- --Riw-?GSi.•-?-? - 10 - i I ?? ` L . S
1
COi R ACTOR GR $ w=E OJiLE' - FMS 6
{
/ -, STAGlN AREA PRO EC
s-N alFEA-rq, X -C
PR-ECTICN 0.
J
r-SW ?7_
-- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ - - _ - _ - 5
, V%?. • ?{ • , , ? ' '? _ _ ?? \ ` = = - - - - - - L2'- - ---------------
CF,-_ 4r, S
x U
`?`•?uC'.5iw__?TqE? u'tET -i _.- 6-13.4 E LIS- R CON <
90,,1 R C
TrRS
'
I - -
i I
• „ J
Z
\ ,,• ?/ \ Fpg - - ??,: _ -.. --r 6e4.E ' _WESTFIE D RD Y - - -? ?I
X
, It,
•
.
,
X\v - - - I
N,' 29.0'/ /? \ \ \ /
I7` ?.\

2 j
LEGEND
I i cX.ST?V^ h'EW

yyc_, y1 PIr eur ^ (sTOauA';
--RAW-
PM..JECi P1Cr.' OF WAY Uhf'S
? ?
-5-5® SEw-ES LtNZ CROSSItn, 10VEA.!$A7)
i ! I STREN7 DEFECTOR
1 -- , ----- STREAAm W; CENTERD E

-
' `
'-•
T a BOMDDR CLUSTERS
/
?
,
.
REE C6dE
-600- INDEX CONTOUR ROCK VANE
l

4
- • - - - - - - INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR
?
MOSS VANE
---- PARCEL BOUNDARY
-
"J' HOOK VANE
?
i 8Ul0NG /STRUCTURE
gg
i
PAVED ROAD/STREET
, I
U 3
J ?
? c L
a
?J z
?c
o
ZJZ
z

I s
V O O
Q
+ ?Z¢g?
ry W d 0
v?
e o CU N t
?? N ~
Y LL' P
U
n
E a
PLATE
GRAPHC SCALE NUA®EA
5.1 0 25 50 no /50 200
(AN FEEL 1 &EET 7 OF iS
us A ? cep.
5
s
J
SI
d

•
Ptek RoAo
El£WWARY SCFpOU
632--, Tr
, 612.Z
------------
- - -
- 't >
-- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------- -- ---
-a+o? - _'', - - -/ _? ' o f ?I . •`pl - I r 1
• c i`f 7, _ - ,l /1 ?.- - \r - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4 fit- ---riYY'",f j \ i . - ?. ??. -??? F ?^ • I
------------------
?-5ro • - - rf ^? F 604.3 I I e
?_ . - - - - 605.5 ST"- `.GC ?C
i mEE r , C'vT?AC 0 p
--------ww- EC ' STAGNO
-6, tA
s z WOPJQ4;-6A'NX C?LLDE,j CS?FRs
D'1?- -_..? I cJ5 i ?d ?1 ?i-?_t`_- ____?-R.IW- -_. -'?1-?-.5,._,..-•W'a __ - - cil
1 x I w _ yam;
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
601.3 ? I
l
II'
. I
x , ? I
III
I I
i?
Cr --5 a
Za -?>J
v a
J
?? I
O ?
vs -
SUG "CREEK QRRfld" i
-77
T y 40
o RpIt1FSMRt__ _ -- ?. ? -I - 5J6.8i - - - W R? ?? + CROSS,VANl
r_ -P ^ t - -i_ n VST.vi
v 6C6.Z x I f
PR4T ?TI07: ? RC.S''J.0.4E PPe WTL«_.? x x? 7 . III ??v?
PI' III !, _
?? I?? ?I Vl_ KING p(W - `
'- l? - I tl .---._ ?---. --._,. I .t i? 2 i+ ? 1, ?? II,'• I
_ II _ ! n I o, i
l v, ? {
BOULDER I?CLUSTKS f-? _ '?- ;? ! ? c f?l? l?? I ?? ? ? _ (Iw?,.-?? I _??-?? ?' •
? _ I_ J i I ?I; , y f
1 I 11 `' I ?(yy?? '
4!L ? ' ? ? I I W? bp- C •- I -k- I I ?? h __y? I I
L 1 ? _ z ¢
- e7
r
WES IE'-C
d
I ?1' I
l x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 ;4
sxIA,`?- - , - - - ,i
•? I X11°?\ ?I 1 k I
r ? •? f°t I,'1
U T
s
J Y J
e
€ a a
t ?
I .o
l o `?
Z
z-, T
IZL?
D
I CZ
'Jf2
?oS=_
US
N 7
iJ
- z
C
J O
n
¦y W y h
a
pp W n
„r 7 F
°c
+ fa
so SEE PLATc P-6 FOR LEGEND.1
PLATE
Ga,AF' X SCALE NUMBER
so 0 2s sa A70 !50 2007 P-7
!AV FEET) SHEET a OF IS
a? I
•
n
•

I I
1 I 1 ,
I I \ I I

' _--- ' 606.
I
51 I
I I I -
j'
I

_ i
1 ?
yr
it I
;I 'I
I 0 < _ ??
41 ->
Ld' 605.3, sl
605.i
:
I -_
I - _
?. -•- ----_
--
ti P TLET

rte, , r? ..,, ' Il ??'` ' ?•
606.9 i
606.3% I
606.3
1 I o x
t 1- -=e----S 5

5----
HOOK VANE-
I
{
608.7
x f
-S
t
J - r9n _ - _ I RE AIR BANK
rw I 1YORKNC ' BIB _, _ _
11
(lEPAfR 8 M1f 6LOUGHWG -- - _ - - - -
UTTLE AR CREEK I 0
llh?
L.R
- -- l' - `'
ttl
i5 ?, 11 BOUlOER U TERS
1 ? y .?' \{ I I 9 x i` R/w
r 1 I 1 ?+ \ 160.7
I,:- . ?. - "? : 11 --.__._. ?n ^I i' 1 I 6091 L 610.4
CgOSS } VANE' '•{{'/?/ .I' - ' 6097
09 ^,ri 1 6g9 7
607.7 1
x 1 i
r I .?61
(1
1 1 -_
c
?6p\ f
-1- W

f- ?q
45
I I I \
to
I •
?? k \
` I
1
-?----- -- ? -- ? ? WESTFIELO RR
0
0
g ?s
E
a
z
?Wo
Ow?
2
WZ?
ZWQ
WQYLZ
¢0
+
z
0
F
k Jp .°,
Z N 4
U
S g 0
t? ? M
)N) H
i
0
?r
0 n E
L 2 w
T Y U C
i Q
SE U
U
SEE PLATE P-6 FOR LEGEND.
?i
PLATE
G14PW SLATE mimem
50 0 15 M ,oo 150 mo P-8
(IM FaT1 SHM9 GFb
® c?"
•
•
E
A B C D E f G H
-,• - 0 , I I

z
?
1 J l?
r
r US Army Cw"
grVI-
i
609 9 '.. I
. ,

_
i T
0 8 r

615.7
M. wfa
Mw
6 ! y
1
I'1 J? r- 1 1
'?
1,
II 1? 4 ; li it
? ?-y
, ? I
?

FREEDOM PARK

08 I. a;' .f I .-; o i
z ? % I b
+, x
-1
6
6j z I
i
I $ ?m
! i

'r MN Mp'
! W % ? C{za ? _ '
610
4 I - ? fi I
14 D .
9.;
M

O
?
5
I,
SEWER
o
j
4 610
T.

1 r' 1
: .
'_REPAii 6?rK'`-,-ww T `? ?6C:0_

-
_..-._

ENEVA CT (L

LLA

T.

r
rq ft S_-
?i ?- - &qr

- IN THIS AREA ., ---
,---?=-, z
r _ = w a 9Mk(C? _
217 -

----- - --- - - ---- SUGAR CREEK- - -
I S,
G
NDV! _w _ - a
----_-_-- - _ _k vv w
618.4 O
x a
- - ?- -- 6p" -- -- N
-
_
_ i
00 i a ,4__ -
_

_ --
-----
m
1. _ 1 611-0
IN w T 9s AREA
STREAM DE LECTORS
BGULtlER d+T ERS
11T1;'J I> ? , - - - "

-wr-1--?
\\ o

/ `

7
1446
I f I 1 a W
I L I I -N,,
; l I? MUSEUM

°-72"F
RCP

o

?
?
I r'"` I ?' ??
- $a 616. i WDi01 _
I
4
1 ?, - gg

1 5
?? L a
l•E?i I; I I JAMESTON DR-- [ i ji
Y € r
---,Q G; ! e
< ?
' .

3 .? 1
%
\ 1

` I
14.4
V I .`
N

I- I 61

III
i

g z
1 1r
? '
I'
/ i
L
S W z
I zw0
w?z
i
1 boo
Vi
7
1? I
L
II`
T

2 1
'
' z
0
Q
J
O e
z y +
w n
Z?
' 5
:
6
s

e
N
t +
w j
Z
• ?tYi F
?
O
Q
SEE PLATE P-6 FOR LEGEND.
} l
GRAIRM SCALE PLATE
NUMBER
so q 15 _T loo 150
-- 200
- P-9
FJ ? SF$T V OF 1S

•
v
.f Fryln.rr.
Dw?
e
6
Z
WSE Z \ -
617.1
a
z -OZZwnm o= Wr ( _
6 our }Px; ¢_ \ 1
-Z-
m om r= ti0, im zo I
? OF
z
%693 ?
14 Z
-I
%
W r I - s \ , I ,t ?, 6
Riw?\ li , I
C7
•
7TMIII
14.4
9 ' 613.0- - - REMOVE CONCRETE dAA Q yw ' • •/ --??' ` _ \` e\' _
i X STRUCTURE AND ROLLER j?' _ 'off' i BOU STERS . ?`OCK VANES - - - - -- • _ ,4 0 ~ r
m GAZES. SEE REFERENCE - - - e 5
DRAWINGS FOR EXISTING - - - - - - _ 6
z z STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION 4 - \ ?W ?? ' • _ _ - - - . _ - v
49 _zZ2 PLAN AND DETAILS. H1 (/f/??1 `? 4 b
a ffi N?'?\' ff 617.1
7 t1 EXISTING CHANNEL SIDE' ..?Q-X`yl(
SLOPES LINED WITH CONCRETE
j ;' ;. ?• - AND GRWLED RPRAP. ACTUAL
Y r •? •TNIGOJESS IS UNKNOWN. JOINT V ?"o
PLACED ?• woz
-? sYWAREAS WHERE SLOPES z
, ? ? r i ' HAVE cRairEO'wPq> o z
1 ?I
1 1 ?' Z ¢ z?
as
1k
T----------- -l ------? --_L ?? 1 l E
1 - / SEE PLATE P-6 FOR LEGEND.
"TE
25 GRAPW SCALE ISO 200 NUMBER
50 Mo
f (? SHEET 11 OF 18
V? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r `\
(AV
I I ! I 1 I i l ??'?_ \??
•
•
1?1
N N N /
'!i ? .,?=" . ';%/ - ? :.? ? ,r !,'? 1, ??',..' ? .?l • ,/,/ .; ,?
--'"'SWY UCK AM OR ?-''- '\• ,? ,? ?? -,Iii j / ?? ?' ?- - --
??. % //// _ ' ?; X ?o;' r • ? ;, i" Rats VAI
59
to _ Ss? _-Q ? ? \ $ i /?^ ` `? \ ?' '.% ,l ? \ •/ • ,/
/? Q? 1? 8 i ?? ?P,s' * ; o OU E?7 CL(JSTEgS
01
CROSS VANE'
U _ _ -- --- . ?
-- -• _-- : •---••'BOULOER CLI
y C

598.14
X Z16- -
? C? uC
G ?5
z=
J ? J 3
¢Wo
in
ow?
z
Zw?
=az
<US
j
q 'o
m 50
SEE PLATE P-6 FOR LEGEND
\ . - 1:?;?: ? . ,. MATE
zs so too Aso xo so P_14
(M FEET ) SHEET 15 OF 16
5936
\ j 595.4 ;
.w. ei.b
•
U
•

A B C C E E G H
y y y y

630
y X? j , r 1
- --------- ---------
• ?
J ?• i' / ?l ??
?,• IR.ig1.n DYNa
------------
%
,
%
, X
1

?,
b
i
-. -•----------
y -----
A
'
-
4
0
i t , ?.
,
` ?
?3W
I
,
r
X
1
'
S A

s
. 7 3754.2
S ASS S69
-------------
} 63.8
-- --------------
}
1' X' • ?. TREAFI'DEFLECTORS
\\ '. X00 1 ?1 /
/
-? \ rXQ Q gW
/ \ ,
\
\
\
<
//
ryo
\
?
.
r ,
ir V Q'
"MG
V
(L
-?
Q
/r
Q
?

n
_ __
•?R ?_ _ _ _
Q
I
G , 'r iw, l ct
?? \?`? r :\/ ;. c` :?, ,7'\ ,?•' \ 1 ?\
04
,
`
'
?
`
-
\? ?, ' ? !
::?(
-?7 i
/ / ;'. ???;
, ??
//.,?p?' y 1. - STA37?b .5& • 1 ?
? - 1' ' _-_ _'-- ?" e
y

'i
wr:
j
/ /? / rs ; ;' / I - - •- - ?1? ?-
'Bt7utDES
?
?`?
/b
H 00 VANES
_z 7
- ? , /- -
? ''? "\ ? ?44'?? iji I I.
-
- - - ! -?
14
= STA 28.71.43 i O:rI Y i enl r 7:)? zd jJ \ - 1 $
` , I• 64-0
{
'
??
LT.
" l
63.05
-
l 1 t 11 ? ?-i N o
.640
i? wiz
pup 1 ! ! l
"
'
'

_
Z OZ
i \?' -_??\r,?
1, / ' i ??/"1 -?'\
\ NUS
-- ,,ti - ,• ,? \ • •,?1 ?'1
_

p STA 9' W
;
r i
r 6517
_
^
'?
_??-;, .
1 11
53.9 Rt
' /I ,,
z
?
\ '
I•
654)7
i
'
-
!
1
`
'
•
/
_
?... _ ; 1' -
F

_?

I
X'
SEE PLATE P-6 FOR LEGEND.
644.5
1
X
?:j• 'I, III ???
RAW
GRAf'fl1C SOME t
?'}`? / 642} 50 0 25 50 Xb 150 2t7
P-15
-
1
(AY FEET) 51$„6 OF 16

•
•
•
A B C D E F G
f
--` EDGE MGRE DR H
I ?
/ / - 6ja '? b ? ? eiMe

610
a

PARSON?
PfARKING LOT

d
%
LIP

7 Z

s
. 4
e
i
q
t
?

I

z
~ S?
J J C
b
r
U_ Z

O
N
NQ
OW?
Z
Z=C
ZOZ
W Z

658.7 TQO
SS
O

j7 t

N
O
?
?
o

lv"N
Z
O
J

659
4

6 O S
Z N
. w? C z o
r? ? 6
0 N> W
00 W F?

00 ?i U „i

w j

U w
Y
a
u r
? J

SEE PLATE P LEGEND. a

GRAPt#C S PIATE
CALE NUMBER
50 0 25 50 100 150 200
P-16

(AV FEE sir 17 OF 16
r

•
C]l
•
A 8 C p E F G H

\4 jig

604.9 v ???--?-"-?? ' V' ??- ' • ,' vV • _ " - - I i i ' -?? A? Vf
1``' ?
1 ?1
r?W?n!R.?v BA?`
%?? ? 1?: // 1 ?/
/ ? /?? ?• . _ _,
E t4?8.000
;'? ?
\
?
y fj
/
,
"

1590 N, 'N
o WQRKM_G-•?-\ `\,,\.?

--------------------

Ilk"
,
4
,l? * • ; ..
E 1448i2
595.2

"XI
CROSS VANS,. \ i•'e\ /` \\ \ %f
9 Imo! 7?\ ?e` ??, 7 ?Y- RFf`. \: :\ 'CROSSANE

i
'ZI

i o Z

\
`
\
l
? Z5 0
ztz
'+. \\
?,`;?;\ 602 ?? .//.'\\
-4'. \c?\,, \?
?
?
'/ f 1 1 ,,'?•'? i•'bcQi Sao
?Oz
','I(0 LDER CLUSTERS

•
-
1• 1 „? ?,.
?
1 _T '?l
r, z
I
? I
' _ y
4
6
j =
V IL

,
.
h
,
A-L
1
F

i
arc SCALE
PLATE
so 0 2s so A90 150
1 200
P-17
SEE PLATE P-6 FOR LEGEND.1 .
(M FEET 1 SHEET m of 1B

•
r?
•
A-1
APPENDIX D
MCACES COST ESTIMATE
•
W
.. q
4
W
f W
a
H H
H
u
u
m
0

d
e
0
u
a
fa
O L
U
u
m m
d C
O
m
d' w
U
a

11
J q
E J+ a
m U
u F
U
O c
Z v+
? Z
a
s W O m
o
T ..
m S
w O
m V ?
.a u
? U E
N N
..
O m y
F 4
•
m
U
c
m
N ..

u .+

Z L .. '

C
..
i
F C
01 a? q 0
W f+
>? ? m
3 O
F
o o m ?
? U T
? L
G m m
W 03 Z W d F F
?+ U 7 D
O' ?+ U
Z o o >.
?6 0
o 9 .. m m
W+ m
N W
w q a

0 W W. C
O

- a W
m
h
O JC ?0

s. U
O

E
a 0 ?n ?

.. o
O

O

v 0
m ?? O

CL
m
6
W U q u C .. .. o N D O E ui
G S GF] fa q d m '] 3 O T 4 .] V v m
M a
o - ? O
y W a
W q
_ _ + N m m
O H a A
U q Y
F W ?O m
O m d'
a W >. >.
m m >.
m m rn d
u C E X
a >.
O. A N m
U
E? C
L U
Y v » W
d 9 9
m 0 9
m ?? F
m U?
m C C
O -+
qv
0 6' M A
U u W C u
01 'e 3.
m C >. C
O d 0 U
O N N N 9
• N o
N Y D
m m -n ti
m L d
M
A O U ip
N C L
m •O W? +?
U O m
? M N
U 01 S
7 ? m
W d W 7
16 m 4 -•. u
C U
4 >.
W
3+ a N d u
d? c
y 7 v D
U d
Q? w
3 a? o
C U o C
U O Y O
6
N 3 > r u E
O
u m m U
U W
0
?O F
O
N
W
L7
N
F
U
W
h
O
z
d
o
0
• N
O O
O
O O
C
m m
7
m
m ?
N
SI W
• `' W ?
F- r -I
LJ
b .? F
• m b m O1 r ."1 n r 1n 01 N m .a O u1 n N N .-1
v. d a e m .o m d b r r n d m b ro

b p
U r r r
b Ifl m N d n r P 111 M d M d O n b A O. A

W
F T N n n d b 01 M N m 111 M Y1 N 111
r N m b b d r v O O O
.r q ? e u1 m
a
W
S y
z F
m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. o, o o
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 o o o. o
o o
E.. q u? m n u? m u? N d n a? ?o o? a m m d ?o ? r. r. r b, n
f
?
a b N N M O N m O O m m d n N A N T N 01
P O n M .+ M N N m t11 111 A 111 N N Y1 d d
b 1 N
1A 4 N N •? O. O O N n
F
p
.a n .r
.+
F
, p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o
• Z
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 1 0
P m n n A n N .-1 N A m P N T t11 b b
m
N .+ •-1 01 01 O.
111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0. 0 0
•
• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0. 0, 0
b b N b b N O b m r r b A O r 0 n
4 ,
•
p N N
n 1l1 N N .D n N b •"1 P r o N
.. m m m
6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0, 0. 0
U
m a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 1 0. 0
111 N N N N N 01 1fl m b r d b 01 N O. Q. T T

p W
E
n Yt N N b N H b .. n r n O. 01 T
a
x
c
0
L
m •
p
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0. 0, 0
w
p 4
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0
A n v b r N .+ .-1 N O. O1 O n U1 Y1 N O O O
m
0 -
C
n n N P N .-1 O. b UI O 111 N N N
m O
C O W
> N N ••? N ,-1
i d N
O
m U O

? 'O
m rj f
(J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0. 0. 0

0 0 0 0. 0, 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m x •O W n 0
P m r o ?D .. m o 1n rv m m m m a m
mv? < r n P r.+ ry s m b b N N N r u1 ??? u1
p v N N? b ti n r n r r
C? U a
F C r r r
Q 3
C m m E
W 2 m , ,
W W v
4 a m
m N N Vl m m m m m
O 1W,. U m : 0 0 U U F F E trgi m [ql [qu m y cglt 0 h o>i Q h h
m W
G: f
>
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w a F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T
U O
4 Y? _

F

.. o 0 0 0 o m r n d b o o .a .+ o .. .. .+
1... W q
>. W W Z
E O¢ Y =
4
? O ro d b 111 .'n b 0
O. b o .? b b N
r n .. b u1 d m
w () ? O rv n
< b N1
o ¢
r G F
to O U
7 W
?
N C
U a m

L Y q w >

w a g
m W C F
Y m u N m W w a
m F m w r R t C1 L E .+ R m m
j F F. ..
..
w 3 m R m L V 0 7.Oi y
u
VI a U R ,G
m u m R O W 0
W ?. w x \ W C F W W C W
W m n W
m F W W
R
p m U m .+ .
i a
O
c
s
•• a ?: c
m m a c w W c a u
u
m m o -.? o a M O z m a
o ? ? y
a w E 0- ++ m a u m U m W
R Y N m 3 C m W q
• y 3 a w
V m y%
f
7
j
N w m
u m t
il
m w
0
,.
w G •+ O
7 -
W
+ fA
F

[.. m..
W u 0
f
E. F
a E X w u 0 m
W W W m U U a m w W 0 b N
O
Z
u o
a N P 2 ++ O C
?
u

m
W: U
0
rv
'0 0 q > m U m U U R '
p V O Y 9 m U C Z W m a Y C O O Y
9 w
m U U
w
Y Z
U D
O
.+
E W
2
C
y .+ R
•p W w
L
w C a u
m
w m 6
W > O
q
O
0 m

.ti • W W R
0 3 m m m O> m E 0 0
L m C m x 9 m •ti >> w >+ O
W • L r1 N Y m Y m m m m 0 0 •O L R
L w .+ q Q. U O U P w 0> m x x •+ m O1 a
U
C
'? 5 z
C 'O Y w U. U C
m u! W a F R' C m W N
U - 1
+
R
'"
a a a
r a
L 3 .. .+ rv o ?. ro n d v1 r m m o .+ r m q q q U q
m o n n m m m m m m m m m a c, m m O O O F O
a. n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n F E. F 2 E-
00.00000 0 0

, b
0 0 .c .n 1n 1n u .c .o .o .0 1o u 1v .o b b b
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o
0
m
0 0
o \
0 0
R m
7
m
O
w •..
• .a. W
• b N F b b P M m m n r n n
r-1 m
O O. T tf1 N P n b A P b m I T N b
b U b b b f 1f1 n .+ m N N A r f

W
F O? O?
r n O N N
s n n n n n .? f
r C7
.+ 4
z b b
f P n
d 7
W
f >•
1 F
o n o
0 0 o
0 0 o
o n o
0 0 o
0 0
? o
R'
F 4 W
O o 0
m m 0 0 0
a f 0 0 0
b o uI 0 0
m m 0 0 0
o in 0 0
a. .•+ 0
E
'F U
b
b b N
n
O f
.-.
N
a P P m .•n O N n n n O .•?
m 4
F .•. N N N
O
F
? o n o 0 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
z o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o
O P P m O m N .-? h n n P
• Itf O. O O O. O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O
O H O 0 0 . O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O
m
F b b O. r b N U1 ••+ b •+ N
fs
p n n b m N N N N N m .+ b
C'
a
u o o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 o 0 0 o
u a o o 0 0? o 0 0 o o o 0 0 o o o
v
W N itf r Uf N O f iA ?(1 Uf •••? N
O E n N1 b m N N N N .fl b
d S
C
O
rs
w ?
4 O i 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0
0 O
o
O m W m m P m b b -. an r rv N
u
m O S
C'
f f
r n
n n
v O W rv N r
O '
O
R U +?
' '
Z V
m
R -'O F
U o 0
O O 0 0 0
O O O 0 0 0
O O O 0 0
O O 0 0 0
O O O 0 0
O O o
O
m S - C W n/ in m n n b o
m U O N N N P O r .•? .•
v m ? n n b m .ti rv
N ^
N
•
w > U
E' ? .-r .
..
OI
E
C m m
W Z um , ' • '
~ 4 a m E m m L' fn W N fn y H
O W Y. D
?+. U J O
7 O O
7 7 U >• >•
4 U U >' >• >'
U U U z 2
F F 2 >• z
F N F Z >•
F U z
F
m ? W W
d. g
>.
o 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
O O
0 0 0
0 0
0
w .. ? F o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U O
4 Y >.
F
.? .+
rv o 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0
F W C
T W W G 2
4 .. o o
? a N N
n? ?
o o
gib.
m .n rv m
E? u Y
s, U f ?
O n b
b
6 b ?
2' 41
N
,[
n U F
Y D U m

d C C
MO
7 Y. (n W

U W ? Y Y

O O v v

x C

C R v
v E
d C
O
R
>
L J?
rs h Z ? m
v Y
M 3 3 m
- C O
R -. C
O v
E rs
1. v
J R
u
QI ;+
J ..
N a F
>~
R O
3 T T
w M
O O
O u
E u m
W R +J
I
U
R
v C Y
O 3 F
-•? O >
R
U %
W
U
W J
L T
M U
i6
R
m C
9 E v O 1.
F m
u v 6 X

LI

Y a
•?
p
?G C m
•.vi u
C
R O
L
R 1. M
R rs
d 6 Of R
C S ++
C
v L O E
V U Y
O C O
L
d
v
6 m n O
•+
O v VI
a U
O
1' -

X
O d
N L m
a M
R m v
M 4 D a E
Y w a rs
v D
v O M .ti
d -+ ?•••
a
C7
O .
M
m 6
v d d 7 v
M L C
R E
.? C W d
W
O m
v x % N %
O X
-
U1 U

R v

++ M

d a a U R

> 1]

E R v

E 'O .
i
z
to O 4 v co

N G
O
n
X
Z
F G. L 11 a R W L v v W F W a F. 2

bU•. a O O
E E U Y
N x w
v v u 'O
u rs O z
O fA N
4 y m U
rn O O
O K
•-
h
p W
u d
O v m
? ?
Y C W O
-. 3 U
'O R .-. ?.
E d U F
rn m m a
U d d
R N R
C c.. F
4 W
3
d 9

.y r. v
?
I] O
3 R d
m 0 >+ M
m

~~ ~ m m w
rs G d
rs v
d d d W
3 z 4
O U Y
U

3 m
W
- O O
f E t
u .+ rs
U N W
?. ?+• ?/1
m a
U U C -. T•.
d' h L'
X F. X
N W O
K
o a 4 d U
C
R 'O E .. G
o F W .. P 4
o o w• .. N 4 U c F ? o o E z ? rv F

•
t
3

o O
F
o O
F O
F
o O
o O
F O
F
m n m m
w n n n n
0
0
0 n n
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
b b b b b b b b b b
O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O
O

O O
O \
O O
N N
C
• R a
7 ++
R
?
Y w
4. W ? i
? J
b AI F
N N a n
P N m Al p N
P N a M d P
P N b N N
n n N N
n n N N .+
b r i'1 m N
p m

b O
U
r V r
r V P
n V N
M
d -d
N P of
M d

W
F A. N b
N M N P
m H N
.o N
?o b m m
a v
r U
•+ 4
z d N n

a
W
?
S >? F o o? o 0 0, o 0 0, o o n o o o 0 0. 0 0 0
K
F 4 , N
. O 0 0 0
a 0 0• O
O PI , r•1 O O i 0
N p P O, O
?O i b O O
P P 0 0. 0
N m P O O
P m
Y U
f
?
..7 m
t'1 M m N O
N N P N O
ti m m m m n r
n p m b N
p m
N 4
F
O
H
? o o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0
• 2 0 0 0 o o o o n o o o 0 0 0 0 0
O
L6 ?'•? .'1
, N N .-1 N H N .-? N h d m p m
N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
m
F r r o p N b r .+ m r r r n P n
4
• O N n .r .? N of b r b
C'
a
? O O O O O O O O O O O O O
, O O O O O
V P 0 0 0 0 0• O 0 0, 0 O H O O
O 0 0, 0 O O
m
W b i'1 P p N N r .+ m b b r n m b N N
O
s. 0
O N N n ti N b i'I b
a x
e
0
m o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 ? o o n o o o 0 0 0 0 0
+. 4 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 W
S b N P N O N N P P P P P O O O .?
0 O
d O L'
W M p » N .+ N .'1 N P U1 P
C >
O
O
m V
2 9
D d
0 9 H
U 0 0 0
O O, O 0 0 0
p O, O 0 0 0
0 0• O 0 0
O, O 0 0
O, O 0 0 0
0 0, 0 0 0
0 0
m 2 - C
O 7
G U O W
s O .?

N M ?t r P P O O
m
b of PI

b b N N

b b N O,
N
r? N
m
d N
G C ? N N N
b „
b
•
C m m u
' ,
N W >
w 4 .7 m
W
y
O W X

?.. U v
7 0

O
N z

Z
„ 4
F. U W
Z U 4
F U W
Z >. 4
E. U W
4 Q
W W
Q 4
W W
w u. M
N .a N
4
w W W
m W N
o. z
?>
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
? •_? ?
O F o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Y T
U
F W z F
2 O O P
0 o N O n
r b O O e?1
N. o V
.+ .-? b b O O O
o o b O O
b 0
>? W W G
E? z Z 4
? P h d .-? N .-? b
N r
°n r
u Z O ^ N ^ ^
4 b 7
O 0: N
N 4
N U F
• Y 7 U
W N W
U C
L t p V
W ..
w, ? u u
a m
u G
a a
m
p F. Z
M E- L G G >. a Qt
7 »
N .] F. m

m m m

G G

m 0

0

'J

w
U
W
Y
Y
Y
m G
O 0 O M H •
y
O C
ie

O U
O U
O U
O u L u

m m m
M 0 d

3
3 '.1 V

G
C
o a 1' C' C 0
O
I
I
m
o
) O
C L
? 7

U
a
J
.D M
M

M 3 0 0

O O

L L

L

0
•+ m
O
O

G

m

01
•
m U
Z U' W
Z Z U'
2 0 m
L u 0
O G u

W G c

G -
U

O
~ O
h C

f.

u
F 2 W

O O 2
W

Z
F. Z >

O O
E. Z

0 0 W 3.
G

++ m m
7 7 u
V

m
w ..+

m d O
U

O 0
U
0 0

U s .a

a m
G e
C

?e m
w
W O 4
R F > 4
> O Y
L. F O O Z
?. H 4 m
7 u u
H H .ti
w ? ? U
c c
7 m
G m .+
o.
N
O
C 2
4 4
W> co Y 6 O
W> S W
Z 4 >
W> U G G
'O 9 m
? r E
0 0 a 0
O
.w C -0 Y
i0 L
a > Z 4 N
O U O O
O Z 4
O U - 4
> Z 4 Y
O U U w
v
O ?
E m G
s+ H C
O m 0 m
O u O u
W m G
> -.
N
N F X C
N W U S H X 7
N W z
X F x O
N W 5 'O O O
m m a
G as u
N lA
m w O s.
W U W
0 - O
.] 7
O
z
a U
o
4 7
O
a M
a O
s.
a >
U .? N 4
F z .-1 N Q
H K .+ N 4
F m 6
o F N 4
o F W 4
o o H .•? .? N
o 0

O O O O
O O
F
m m a
m d p H N
m N N H
m m r
m r F
m m
m P F
m m o
P 0 0
r
0
0 0
0
.0 n
0 n r
00 n
0
0 n
0
0 n
0
0 0
0
0 0
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b ..? b b b b
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0
N
0 0
0
0 0
c
• a m
7
m
m ?
? W
u. W
,
• b s F m w a N r•1 y n o o N P
.r w
O a m v P m P N n b N
n n r
b U n? O N b O n y b P P
ri
W
• E y P N
•-1 y r n P n
N O b O 1A y YI
O O O
1? C1 N N A P N •^. •-.
a
W
E >.
• E.
o o• o
0 0, o
0 0 0• o
o o o, o
o
o
?
F y o o o-
.. o m 0 0 0
v n m 0 0 0 o
r o n o o o o
b r ? r o
b o
? U
E
7
.7 O P
.-1 w V [?
n A m 1(1 N .•. P
m .-. P P P P
m N y m ?
b
N
y a .•1 i O O O N
F
F
. o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o o 0 0
. z o• 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o? o
?
w N <

.y n N .!I m ^1 P .fl b b b

P P P
w 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 O O O O O
o o, o o o, o 0 0 0 O O O O• O
m
F n P t? n o r P .. n o
p N m m m
K
d
L I O O O O O O O O O • O O O O O
U • P 0 0. 0 O O • O 0 0 0. 0 O O O O
m l
W n n b b n P VI P •-r N P P P P
O E •+ N .•? n b r n P P
d s
G
0
m O o o, o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o o o o
w
O m a
W o 0 0
P m n 0 0 0
b m U1 0 0 0 0
N 0 0 0 0
N O O O
Y S
d O W .? ..
O
O
m U +.• '
Z O
a m
m -•O F
U o o o
o o 0 0 0 o
0 0 0 0 0 0 o
0 0 0 0 o o o o
0 0 o o
m 2 - C , W O y • b N t? ?' P
mm m m • P P P
?p?
d U O n n N m .. ? ^ ? v+ in
i d C
?• p
G O .n .n N
?n b n n ?
r r n
-.
i
01 .Fl 7 E
G w w y
W w z m
•
,
•
w W >
4 .7 m
. 8
d w
m m m
m m m
O W Y A O• a s a a U O >• 0 0 O r O O O
4 U 0 . 7' , W W W W 4 '] U •'] h h w 7 h ")
m , W y
Q f
>•
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 O
o 0 o O
i. .7 ,
O F o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U 4 Y >.
F W K F
z o 0 0
r+ o ..

~ o .. .+ ..
N o .+ .. -.
>. W W a a ••? N b N n
E O K S
t. U f ?
O .+ n
n m
4 b lo
O C y
N 4
m
w O F
• Y? U x x
d d .O. }
F
? H y W
U C m

a L

Y d ?. 3

4 A m CI
W
.a
1. .] D r G

w N U d o o
o O
O y O
d' ? d
d y
e0 F„
Ol F
C L
u M 7
O E E
O W .+ W
W C W .? U G
d' G W
7 w
y ..? H e6
7 11
a ?
W d' m K
4 W 4. N 4
CI y
U
W a
m f 'p
m W
C , O ,
C !! W a U
H 9 .]
h

O
OI
ti r
?I
v m
•? 01 01
?•
d
y 0 W
m f+.
o O w G
b d' 9 R C y ti 3
3
•+ 3 C W F
N

U U h

7 m

w L

U m W

3 W co
a W
F. W w H

•a
y F G W C d m W U O

F L z m

O 4 t1 m

Of E

w ~ F

W

o
V I U
z O z
m N
E.
w ?+. 3
.7

O
U
W G .] Y
d m C •a G
m .6 C
V O o o
U, U S Y
U d •O L U

h
O k
M L
M G
y
L

C
01

O C d
0
Z

O
G U

W w 2 W
Z C U

O _
d F m 3 •O m O d , O
9 t A
3
>
> O > d Of m O W S y 7 S
= z
C W m O.
ti
O
+ O
.7 C ••7
.? m
d
1•. O H F
.7 O
E
W D
.7 3 ?
•
Y
W .] .3 .7 U
Z
o F H o o F .. N n F 5 F F F ..
0
o o F F t? r r F E- OF V t
P P P P P P P P P U
F
O
n n
0 0
0
0 0 n
0 n n n
0 0 0
o Z
O F

b b
b U
b b
0 0 b
0 b b
0 0 b
0 b
0 0 0 0
• o
0
y
0 0
o ?
0 0
N N
C
• a m
h u
m
m O
N
1r w
4 W • •
r
L J
b .+ . F o 0 o O o 0 0 o N ?
.-1 i W N 0 0 o O o 0 o v N I
O
b • V •-? 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m
_ m o 0 0 0 0 0 o m
W E N o o .. b N o b
r V ?t1 n P .-? O
•+ 4 z .+
d ?
W
S a ? F o n o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r o o N P• .+
07 ul N O n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O b 0 0 e e ? e
e o
F 4 O o n o 0 o - N 0 b o N
F U .+ 0 0 0? 0 m
W m n o m o .i o .. o .. o b o n o N b N
q a N O N O N N b .? N P O b .-? .o
q ui n P .+ .+
F
O
F
d• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0? o
W o O O o 0 0 0 0 0
F o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• O •
a O r O P 00 O O 00 00 o l O O O O n
q in a O m O o 0 a 0 a 0 o o b C O o a
• O M O N O N b N 111
? R• O O O O O O O O
W m i'•1 O m O N O N O r1 O b O M O N b
F N O H O N N b .? N P O b A
4 in r? a .+
E
Fz O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O N P
•
O O O O O O O O p e• P
S s
. d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m
a
W i
u
m ? z o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0? o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O m
4 ? 4 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
d .7
c
o
N O O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0
a z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 x
o z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G
m f
m
z
m U
q o
z ?•• o
A O
m 3 W
m x W G q G 4 q q N
• a4i u m . U Z Z 2 2 z F
C„ O m i x N Z Z W Z m
F C O O O O O O m O G 4
m O
a? u ?? a f s s u s W W x E
c m m
W •- z v > o r r o o r n rf o
W W m F o b b o n o b n O
W 4 a u 2
O W Y 7 4 •-1 r'1 n ••? m .1 n NI n
W V A 7 .•? •-? .y .••? n .•?
m W d
d f M .-1
4 a
O m d
U G Y .? ?
F W q Y
T W W m U
E q G u >
4 U U G d
6 b L .
o C E t M F
N
6 0 O u N ..
N ? 4 d m C 01
Y 7 d ?• U O
Cm
? 4 b E N
U 4 u E m X
W m G m 0
E
4 a m r d
is F 9 u U V 3
O F m G u P >
7+ M m m t m O
w a F u Ol 4 m o m
C A m o E
m a .? m o m
V 4 L G d
m 4 4 d O ?+
?o w G O m OI m
0 7 4 d 3 C W c 9
• O m O O W O >• m
O T L d m L 3 m
? •O m m •O U d S L
% > d +1 m 4
m > 4 E m Y m
F 7 O m m CC >
U W U m F F W O F F O
W
ry n n n n n n n n n a
O G
W N i11 p O O F
d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
0 o N o o H
0 0 o n o in
0
N O? A T A O? A
K + y
d O O O O O O O O
V v V V V v V v v ,.
m
aEi a a a s a? a
Y W W N y
.+ q E Y 4 4 E ? ? Y
•p f
a
m
t
4
m
O
m o
0
o E
? F d q
O o 4
o
0 0 0 G o
4
N F m
m E
c w o
m m M
ry q d
W W
m q a
N a
4
F
4 w W O
W W q . •
r ?
?J
?o N
.r F
W

?o O
U
N
W
F
n C7
? d
W
s a
F
F 4 O
F U
o a
F
F
C
W
S •
O

4
C
W
4F
Y
F
7 2

7

u O
W •
u
?
m z
0
O
a ?

c
0
w
0 1'
fa
O S
2
m
C

u
m U

Z D
?
a m
m m
m x 3
w
m U U

C .
7 m 4 H
m
w W m
w
] w F

2 7

?
O M
t U .+
7
G
m ? W •O
a s ^. O
w a
o a
U 4 x
o O o
0 0 0
N ? O
b b b
N N
P
n M M
O 1f1 • N ? N
o u u v
• N N N
N
N M M M
N to N N
b b b
N
M M
O O O O
0
0
0 0 o o
O
0
0 0 0 o
O
0
0 0 0 o
0
o
i
0 0 03
0 0 0
0 0 0
F w D
T W W
O
Y
Y
E ? w m R
H U b M
O
O
G .o t n A 3 3
o K m
N G -+ O
T E u
T
T
N C7 G.
Y 1. U
O m Y
O M
O
w w
u .v
% a o
m
m

m
W O
a ~
m o d Y
m L
Q
m F C. o d d
O+ F
7 H u
M 7
lr
M
w a d O d o•
- L
u m 01
a
a
7
A m 0
A
b

o O O M

E V L O

E 0
O
E

U
Y m u
O u m d
?

w w
3 u a
u E

F A r
O+ m A
O A
O
U
W T
is E 9 9 E S
n
o Y O n .]
G a
G
C
a 0
O
x 0 F
F F.
F
m m
m T
M d
m
M
m O 4
a
7 m

u f.
m ,a
m
m C
a d
m A
O

w y s. E z

m m a
m a m
? a
7 •.? m .e C
L
u V m
a W
e
m + ?

'? o
0
E 0
E
m
J u .
.
m ti m
O
G• V

m ry
m [a
A O

.'?i
m O
E
O
0

? F
o 0
W •0 3
A 0
?
0 o
M v
o
N F t o
w
C W v m
m m
h u ?
3 [s. O
m W
m c a
?
N
4 n
0 O
F
W
i
s
w
u. W ?
? o
in
o u
P r
M u!
o f N
P .o
v
M
Ifl
M r M

N N M r O

O i(1 V
O N r
r V N r b

? I V
O I
N

Y1 P - N
r

N O

.n
b
N b

n e
N V
r
.n
Ifl

m

r
0 0 O O • O O O O O O O O • O
O O O O O
G O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

O m
M .? N
.r b O .-.
U1 P r
b r•. P
•+ P N
?[f
u+
V N
m N
M T

M r,
N O
N

N
N
P

n

m ..
r o
.o N P P

..

n A
o
o m
.n O. P

n

,n
n i!1

a
•o
•o <

r r
n u
- o
o
m
r r o
o

0
o n

o P

? •o
o
o m
m
G [a F 7 4.
V E W F
8
0
o O
x ?
o w
u u x u u
u

u

U
G
u

U u
u

G

„
U

N
U

r
U

u
U

T
U
0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0
0

.. 0
O
o 0

..
o 0
O
0 0
O
0 0
O
0 0
O
0

?
?-+
T
n
L P
r
T
r
r

o w
.7 ?3
u
-•• U
T 6
S C
0 V
T ?
u E -. x 0 0 x -+ m
V W .? u V
m d
C! -•+
m 9 •
V s
m- 9
O
U L
t• U
Y ?E Y
U x 0
W N C
Y .0
9 F t• C1 C 'O T F f. T
9 C O
T A
u m
S
V N
s a
9 C
u u m o
? U
x- S
v >• •O C
u m o
a
N O •.
.+ U A
7 W M
E T m
U U N O -.
m

M
U 9
m 0 O C U U N N 9
- m •-• M 9
J O C m
>
a m w 0 'O w a w m
•O•?
C? S U
d 9
01
9 1• T N
O Y• 7 u V
J 'O V
X Y
R L U

?+ -.. C

u m x

O .] S O

L m V

w +. W 0
O
31
?, a mw
? a
i a y u>•? yw m s
? u
m iJf 9
m ti
m
m ? u
V u T
U V v-
a 'O A d
W

U- O 0 O L
a MI
U X m
W N X in O
w ,p Uf 0 0 l+
a E v
N .e
W
O
n n .?
G
•-• n n n a
4 a
4
m - o O m O O
C F x F F

A N N to
J
1• O N
N m N
U
o m
0
0
,a v O
v >
a 0
v v v
u '
? a a x a a a
u
i
i. z z m > z z
W > > O U 7 ?
sY. T v ? a in a .?
3 u
L O
u O
n
O
O
m
W 7

0 n
0
0
0
0
•
b n
.d . F
m m m
n e+1 o
N o
N m
Yf o
o n
r j r
r r
r
b U m m .a N b e
.y T M
N N
N
r•1
47 F
n C7
? m
7
41
E a
F
m
?
m N
NI I I
r
O O?
N t11
? 01
Itl
?
? .•?
N
?
o o
O b
n 0
r b

r
? O
F Q ? O o
e n m - ?n ••?
F U m a

Q N
F
O
F
z o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o o
m o 0 0 0
x
F
o
0
0
0
O
a o b b o o o b o 0 0 0 o o
. Q m m i N O . N O b O . b ? b

tea' • r n
n
o r ?n
0 u+ m
m n n n
Q
f
F m s e N .. .+ u? 0 0 o n
?
v
Z
Z a e a
v? ?n o r n ..
b o
0 o
'0 0 0
a o 0

O
u
m
C
O N N
m m
m
O
O O
n N
N
O b? ? .a N m v o r N N -

O

G

O
N

O

m .
.

.
.
a a N N e P b ? P A
G
w
Iq N N N b .-? N M O O n .-i
m z o r r o? m ?+ o ?•+ ? ?
M
O x
Z
O
O N N
O
O n
m F

K
y
q u
y p b m
a Z m ? m m p
q - M 3 F U
x
ym, x 0 C O O Q O
M
m. U U U U Z ?
M>? U-? E m m m H
• F a' V
m 0.
C

7

U U

U
u
U
U

F

F

F

F
M
IT
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
m 43 m . r
? F O O
O O O o O o O o O
p w y .W . 4 O O O O O O O O O
a U .y
m 4: D D
O? N N
b m N N
? N
?
o
o
O
O

3 m 4 D
U Q Y L m M m m D
F 41 D
?, ?? C - C N C
Y 0 0 O C m
A q q R
E? a' q ? E M .+ 7 L
' ? M R
M U
Q b L C Y
m C =
m - G
O \ C
G O O
0 3 m C u? O U C m
?n m O t
C
o C m E q m -? m a q N a C n E ++ +? O
• N 4
m U [v Y A
C E D
D y
U
m D M q m m .+ 47
110 E.+?++AO
• o d
m u .?. -.D >. -
y
- Y q 61 C 3 q Q
m U O .? d .-1 C m .-? 01
' V
• M m
U b R
E D
t d
E C
m q N •.? C N K
R m w> O M 47 q O Sa O
m m C
M o O m y - d
m o
M a m m
D m m
A .? O
u E
Y y m y g m>
C U +J G\ Y m Q U .+ w E y
. m m E m O
M
q F M O
7 C L q o? +1 •.? O C ? y E m D q - m a
pi rFi

O M
0
q m ?C -

.y m m a q

R M m G a b C p Gl

\ L m q .+ C 41 K c x
0 O ••? 3 X D
m M W M A O 7

m
m a t m D L y E e m .r M - P y C m N E w C C M A 4

3
q 3 q q
M G
m W .+ A m ?..? M m 7>
N q C M m g 7 41 M> 0 4
0 -•? 4 M
U
M
m
3 O
?+ 41
Z
+i
O - m 4 E D .4
= M¦ S
~ M
y q
W
um
m
u (n O

b
m M M
M E m C .0
0 7 m N
u m
D m q C G1
O D
D .+ O D? O D O
y M 4 m u
4 U C m J O F
o u
C O +?
A .+ q m C
+? q O
M m. m
A O m 2 M
D E= M Q m M Z .-+ g D u m
O
u g M 0 m
C .-O

m

m
(j m E U - y C m m y M o C m 0 m 0 4 m c m M m m
O
m E
Y -
.. v .+
a q m q
4 u M m t 0 .+ g 4 m F
m w u E \ Mq m o > 6 ++ q
b m a q M m
m y
m

F C
q .+ q .?
•A O
•.? E w R
O -.i .? •'+ C
O > > U M 4 c C O .+ m
m m m g 7 m 7 M m .+ 4> D 7 m
m O M c a O' > q

u 4
a
u R u. G. y U?> m rs
+ z M C 6M> D m -0 m C K y 0 0 g m a V
m
h E
41
n a u
n
a
a +
U
n
n
a
a

z C4
H
F 0
F
F
a D
m o I.
N O E
O o
n O O I
O .P+ O O
D o E. u o F F
M
o
F
F
o O n a
m
y M
m
o a
o
m
C
m
.+ e
N L
c N
N d
o b
E
Y q N
o m
E N

y

o
m C
q M
m v m
u
q v V

a

m v

a ?/
-.
a
M
q E
m
E E
a
d
z

D f z
F m
A C
> K
u m .r C 4
m

u >
m ? o
M m m m
a m -
.?
N
m
m N m O
N N a m
y a n n U
r

u
N n
O n
O
O
O
o
O
q ?
b
b m
-
b
® \ 41
b F ;
? a ?'1
O O O O O
0 0 ? w b
b
0 0 ' 0 0
N F
b
C W D
- q m
7 y ?
? 3
q Gl
m ? a
N
• q o
•.? w F
M 41
0
b
G.
7 O ? o ?
•
b v E. ,
m o
o n
r r
r o
N o
N P
? o
j o
b U
y P rf
N .. .? u1
N m
•••?
w F .
r C1
.+ a
z
a ?
w
E .] •
F
o o
r .n
b
o P
P
a
o 0

E:, F • N
U? O O

N n 0
N

? N r
b r
?n N
o O O
P

w
.y b P -
O
• b
~ O
o
• r m

F
p
F
w o 0 0 0 ? O 0 0 O O 0 0
• w o 0 0 o
F o 0 o O
O
J O O 0 0 O N m m O O
a O< O P P P O O
- P
w O O m
• w b b m m •+

F
Z o 0
o o r
o r r r b
o N b
o 0 0
0
S
a
o

b
o N e

b
o
j b

U d
w
,
,
U
m
w
O O
r m
m
N ?'+
,f+
O O

O ' O
m O r N
- O N
O
?
P
P
P O
-
M 4 O m O O
m b b
C

V m O O r P P • O O
q w O n U1 U1 O r O
() y O O O~ • O
L 4 N N N
m
y E

L -
m U
u o

m S - -.m?
? to
4
w c
<
a
m U U ?
Z O
7 ? y
m
>. U •.?
E ,
y
OI
y
y
y
?
F w u
= O
= Z
F Z
F y
F Y
ti >.
y y
F 2
F
@ 4
G m
? .. y >. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
y w m F o o O O o 0 0
O rail x 4 o O o o O o 0
a U .-. 7 b ?o b b of
m w 9
O, S d
b
b ^
b
a
m
b
0 a
3
a
?
Y
m

U a Y
m
1r m
m 9
U

L i
D
F w 9
T w w 1, C
Y O O L m -•.
D m m D a
- U -? <
E p z 'o y
s. .. O L A u
R r E > x c
H U
4 b L C O P\ w
0 3 m C N p .
.
U G m
,n U O t
-+ 6 a,
m m M R
c m
O w m m m R N a C E L u M m -+ Y D
- N a •?
rn U 4 9 M N m u w
U O E D ++ P U O 6
m ., -+ -+ 9 T- C
O E
m
3 V L
Z w

7 M 41

U
4 C -w N w
R
D m w> O M w
>
y 0 M Q m m C

O O m 7 a+
u

U
O m

.?
~
•-•

m
m

a m
--?
O
?+ .-, '?
w 0
w .7 m L m m>
C V - c\ S 6 U '• w R L
m m
E m T
- D
C e
m F O m P •.? o C D E m 'O R -
-m O 0
U O m v1 O m
•-'

j F Y M P C d b C O w
\ u P m --? G w w C O - 7~ 3 X 'O
m s. m O D O 7 H
a --? M
4 a

w
.•• ,
m L
m u
m .l e m .+ M - e V C N w E w C --? C 1•, D D T
X 6 m m 0
.? D 01 T~ M m 7> m h

N m C mV 3 m m > O O a

•+? H m a m O

4 m m
N
T S .+ N

F
s
w .
I .I
O 'O ~ m R C • wc
?v o ov R m u U o U m R w
.-r a u u c a m rn U
= o O
~
w d
m
c
O
m 4
-
u C
O
O R
u uv n

(?
m r G m w a m w z
u w O 0 m 0
9
a v u R O U
a m C m s? m Ol
a
R
a
m
>
X O

N
6
R
r.
R> m 4l
p m^ O •? R> m F
y w U -? q E \ R m 0 -•+ > a M m
S? .•? b Ol m R w 1.
6 m 3
m ^ >, m
E

F > u L a .-? .•? C O m
m m m m 7 m v Ya m .+ 6> 'O 7 m
m 0 Y, c c C' > C.
•-? -.?
M O c
m 0 a
T G
-•?
C E O .+ m C
fa m 0 cv
u L w L 6 H> 'O N w •p h w w a? O O R m R w U y F w O tll w 'O F rA
ry d n n .7 O n D .7 y n
p E a t G m
a .
R v .?+ O o O a u
U
4
O o F O F F u
x O
w o
.?
E a
~ a
m
a
m o
x a
u u
N
v N y N

m ti
b O
.+ O
V
V O
%
F O

-•
N

?

cc O

0
M 6 d d S X 4. 6
7 N w w y. N > _
w
w
L 4 Uf tq m y to
U
G
• .7
U 6
•? 7 7 ? U ? F O
q m w F ? y
• r!l
a a C
R L 3

m w
O
O N
O
Y .+
ay a m v
O .
N
U .,? N
w P m w m
? O O
O
O
\ w
R
4,

M
o
b
O b

O M

O

O
O \ f
O O , w '
, -.1 , b
O b
?
N .a F
w
C w 'O
R m
?] ?+ Cl
3
m w
m o a
N

i?1
G O
•.? w F
?
s. w w
m w o b
o .
0.. F n
m
U n n
.o P n
N
W F
n C7
W
f a
F
n P
P
m nm m
F
W U P
?
o a
F
F

K o 0 0
W o
s
F
o
O
a o 0 0
K o 0
P
? o
F
q
S
F o 0 0
Z
E O N 1(1
d .?
a
L W ?
u
m

C
n P
P
O n n
O
w m
.C e
m e
d a
o
r
a? ? m nm m
w S
O
m qZq o

K F

u
m U
.,
z o
..
a m
m - m
? 3 ? o
S
sm.=oM ? o /
V I U U
N O Z m co
F D u
m
G
• O
7
: Z
F z
F

M a
.
W Z 1
.
N
o
0
m W m ? Z Fz ? o O
O W Y ++
G. U .••1 K
O o
m 0
?n
m W •O O
d E _
M a
O r. - 3
U iC X 'O
w m m 6
E. W 'O O c m
?
m
E O C A
w. V i d u
a s
U C m
4 e t
o C m m m O L
W C n E ++ ++
W O ?. m y .+ •.? '6 T
• Y O
7 w m C 7 m .y O?
m 0 w O' m m C
U ?o
W o w? W m O u •.?
U m - Y

A F 0
m
y
-
o
++ E
M
z
m F
c X
O
7
3
: X
C •.?
m W m o s o V
o

d
m a y m> w 0 0.,o O
u 3 w m 0 -? G w
m m u w u m 0 H
w O m U
G u o
A 9 u F
O
o
N m
.+
0.-0 u m w 0 m 4.
0 m o C> C. am+ N W
m ; .0 01 m .0 7 m O
F
U ++ m O U C C CT >
C w O O m m m F
W
W
n
n
a
od F
d O
F
m V
m x
y? d
m
?
z
„
V m
?
C
m
m
w
m
m
y
.a

O

O ti
U
m
W
\

m F

4
0 0 ?
o \ m

0 0 M
N.y F
m
O
C
W
?
m
m
' n u ? 3
m W
m o a

.
N I
1
•.. w F
w w W
4. W O .o
. o ?
.o n of n s
Q
N M
n O
n
? P
.+
N
.n o n n in .+ P n
a ro e o a . o P

N
n - .-1
n N of
0 0 0 0 0 0 o o
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 o ? o
O o 0 0
P
0 0 0
0 0 s n .-? N ti N
N
N b ?
N ?•I b
Al
N b
N
b O
P e? < P
P n e
P ^

0
o
r m
n o
O .n ..
O n n
r'f m .c
? N
0 0 0
F 7 h.
a 0 m
x U U
m

U U U U F
N O O O O
O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0
N N N ?[1
o
W a L
a
d m
d'
U a
++
E m T
L a
x
W O O
a B Y
U m
U

V s
.y 'O X
W
Y
U X O
W N ? C
Y m
W
F v

V
S m
>- 9 c
X
f+X] n >? m N O ++ „+
E U u u X
U N N? 7 0 C
A M m" u O d?'
v w
m s o w z
a s 0 a o
m V
F
W
.07 >. .s >. ? C w > 3
\ U
V U u
u u
b
o b w
m o m
O u
x R
U Y
U

K
N
w n
t
w .
] w
A n n a a
E F

c?
n O F

N
N N
N
N
O N
O N
O
Z
O
a
a
a
F
> > s z
u u > 7
m
ro
N a a
m
M
0
O
o n
o ?
? P
0 o n u
0 o n P
. N n
m P -
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
o r o
m o
ti
O O O N
O O O
O ti P
0 o n a
o n P
m ?
0
0 0 ? o
O
0 0 ?
x
o
Z ?
y y
F F
0 0
O O
0 0
o m
P
.mi D w m N 'O
O C m
a m m ?
m Z m U c m
c x o w e n E u u
a o o
Z C m +.+ .? •+ 'O T
o. - x o c d .+ a
-.+ m 0 m o w P m m M
w .. 7 n w o w m? .+
.. w C m ..+ E m-0 m -.E. 0
y u c 0 3 X v
°a m m\ o E ?.?. c •.O. D c M a
F~ N u im. N O a
3 w
c:< m m u w Q m o
o.u c O'0)70
w sm. o. v oi m w 0 a
m> m ra o. m c m w m rn
-.. E -.>i a N smi ti u T A aye w
•Er YOi m 0 7 a m O M C C O` >
m w •p Y m s z u 0 0 m m m
Y e
O O
C n
a ?
C? N
nq O
W w C
W O 7
4 E.
m .+
0
z
U m
n
n o
m
O
O
0
• b b • F
r w
O n e n o a
v U n
N N n n o
N
N
41 F
n U
~ a n
W
F. .7
• F
• b
b N
n N
y ?fl
, O•
• y

F 6 m
O O•
a n
o O .-• N N
F U N r
W
O
J P
N •? N n m
N
F
O
F
• z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o
W o 0 0
s
F
o
0
0
O
.] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0
N
1' O O O
W b b
Y
F
.-•
o
Z
E O
a y b O•
r .y n N
n N
b
a .. N n
?
N
.

u O
W
•
u
m
a
•
b -.

O O
m N
m T r N
N O• m O A
N
Y q O O
C
o

? y o n o b m n o
e s o o.+ no
Y
o S
z n
o
0
0 . P
m
m
z

u
Z o
..
m
m m
3 F
S
WW
F
Y? O u z X p
?O O
m • U U X ' U U
q
O1 ..3 ? m , D • F
U
U
U
U
f
+l
C m m 4.
W
w Z
T
O
n
O
O
O
O
m W m F o 0 0 0 0
w 4 .3 w
O W Y w Z
q
O
O
O
o
o
a
C. U .+
m W 9 =)
O O
m O
n O
n O
n
Y .]
U 4 Y W m
F W •O
A W W C .]
a m
p:
U
E ? s m
Y U F
4 01
C >. -
4 b L
o z m x
W O O
.7 u Y
u
N q ? m
y om 4
Y
Y U a
X O ..
? Y y
U b
x U
O W N Y m
W O U K •O >. F Y
Y ,
m F O
6'
U > m m
>• 9 G
m F X - 9 U m 0
7 ..
y ? a W n
S >. m
U U N O -?
Z U N N
Y

F 0
9 a
R •O•
Z
W

O O
O
•O Y ro Y
O Y 7 - u
a 9 O Z
q
N a m S .4 S O m U F >
D W :] >• a Y• \ m w > w
y Z
O \ U
U U>.
U U •O •••
ro 9 m q
U y
O
F
U F
w X m
W N x y o
W b N O O Y
.7 I L X
W K
U

W -3 1 A .3
O G q 4
m
a F
o F
O F
O
F
N
ill F F

N
O

O N
N
O
m Z v v v
O O
C
C
C
Y
m F
4 o. a a
W
u q y m
u U U >
> >
>
C
ro X
W
7
]
Y
y
a O
O
N S
mm
-

O
o

U
m n
0

b

m
r.3 [ o
y F
0 o q
m o

o \ .Si
o ? •.
a

o
N F
y
9
C W
m v
h u O .
3
m W
m O .7
N

n
q O
F
w w

4. 43 0
W

, o •
o r r
o n ni s
? a r N
N
O O r N N
O lfl r P O?
• N b
m T N
.. m P n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o y o y o
• N N
m O O
.+ m m
O O O b b O?
O O n r y
0 o r b b b 0
O O•
O O
0 o n o
0 0
0 0 ? .. o
D F
z E
4 W d
O X
Z ? X
y y y
Z Z Z >•
F F F U
O O o
O O O
y y y o
r n r
.-Ui p Y u 9C! 9 W
qq s m ro ? a
> C ro Y D u E
C , z Z-• N .. U m u O L X
w x p a C n E u u W
a O a •
Z C G •+ +? 9 T
O. - S O C ? O .» 01 s
.. m p m o Y O' m m M u
Y .+ h n Y o O mm u Y O
m e •o U .. w m m E m O
.. Y O m u E m •O m -. m z u
m u\ N m m O Q 3 0 3 a W n
>a. Y uoi v w a> w O O. L 0 >• .?.
F C ? v U U O u m 0 U
I U •O ? O. u C a m z O w O
••+ m y ••• m V u m O 'O Y
Y 7 Y C. -C m Y 0 d 4. m S
m> m W d U G m Y d Q7 O\
->i .] m ro m > O. u m W .7 >•
.E+ w m 0 3 m 0 Y C C O' > F X m
y w 9 I y C C u 0 O m m m w W N
n n .] n
u F
U O
O o F
6' •? N
a N
.-• N
U N N
Z N
O O
F v v Z v
8 O
t,. a a F i
4
W C K > .>•r
Z
m y q
O 7
X V
y W
m
n
0
b
0 0
• O r r b n N
b r r F
N n
n N
O n
O A
A O r e T O
b U n r O
N m
? a n
N N n r
W F » .
r C7
.+ a
2 N
a 7
W
F a
r r 'CIO

n 0
f'f a

N m
O N

r p.
r b

r N
r b

0 0
O O

n n
n p

n
r e

b .y

?

n n
n n

N N
O O
F a ' O? N - .+ r b r m N e r a n n
F
41 U n n
.+
.+
a
.? e m
N
b N n n
a a
R .+
F
O
F
z o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W o 0 0 0 0 0 0
x
F
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
a o 0 0 o r o r o 0 0 0 o r o 0 0 0 0 0 0
q o o r N o 0 o r o 0 0 0

?
o
o N N
m
o N
0
0
0
W
F m .y e e
q
F p N .? m o n o 0 0 .+ •-1 0 o e e
Z b N N A N Or O O N N N b b
~
S.
W N e e
n A n
~ O N
.•1 N N N N n n
.7

y O'
W
r
r
r
u
m tt
?.D
D
e m
r .?
e o
rn n

a
a
.+
o o
o
r n
r?
n
a
b o
m
p e
n r
e p
rn^
O
H m
4
0~ b
n n r a
o
O
o
n
d a p N N
C

m b o n n n r o o
r
m n o b b
ip d' o .+ n N b n o r
i a o 0
O Z O O O O O O O

m a
s
m
z
a u
u ?
z
? m
»
?
W
O
F
?
W
a m r 3 W F S E W F
x O O
H O
m r U ' C r
U r O
U O
V y O
cn x U U
.y
C 2
F C u
a 7
m O
7 }
U N
U >I
U 6
W
F Z
F z
F >r
U }
U }
U
m
C m
W» y
m W m r}
F O O
o- o
o O
O o
O 0
o O
0 0
0 0
0
Q W Y N ? O O O r O O O O O O
W U '? b b b N N n o 0
m W v a .
i .
a .
-r N N
a f .+
H a
O T.
t
T
?
•O
t
T
O F fYi? •O aai O O c m 3 d u
T W W C L' .O a a a L' U

FEi ° u a
r
-+ L > c
m z a H n u
u c m s
a m
c i
q b L O O S •? C m N m O L x O O E -•r
o fY ?
N a a L u
m Y D
d .a c n E„ ai

O O. W a u u

m
N O V• U r .+ V K
2 m u .+ -.r 'O
-
T s .+ 9
• Y 7
H N X O
W N C
Y a O. - S O
m 0 .
i
C J m O1
a 0 H P m m C Y
O X O
W N , C
Y a
U b H H .+ 7 n H O O m 7 v -+ Y O
' H
W O
H a 9 T
T F F H
m m a e
G b
» U .+ a u
w m m M m U
O G
`? 9 T
T D F H
m m
a F S >r '6 C -r H O m
' E m 9 a 01 C u S
' } •p c
OI .Fi

J 'O

} m U a O

N O Cl ai C O - J 3 x 9

m H m 0 O J

J x .-.

W
F O

>• m
O
aO
-•?
m a U u .+ .+ u O. m m o E w C C H D
> U u .+ a.r
~
7
N •O rl H 9 W
Z T S .? N
F N m a
0 O.
u 3 H m 0 0. H O
Z } ..
U N J
N 'O
m

•O H 7 0 C

m w 0

Z a

> C

O m 0 a m U H a, a 0
H U
O. m

F
••r .... m
9 H - J O C
a w 0
b
O a M
O H J S U
0 •O O
x +? U 9 r
m' G U C m z O
O rr a 9 u m O
O -
9 H a M
O H J x U
a 9
N
O .] \ O
L M u
H F
a O
O H J H r
a> m W O. 'O U a H 0 u
O. W G m H m 01 r. a
O .] S O
L u u
H -.r
w
N }
U T m w w
•O w >
a S .? > a m
E -•? » a a m 0 > O. Y a
H -.? b QI a a c W
z 3}
U a}
U T u w
'O -•+ w

F u u
X N O a 'O b
O O H U
X -
?] E O- M C
H m 0 J O. > •O 7 m
++ m O H C C O' > O
E. u
X m u u
x N o a 'O a
O O H
U W b N a f L W c N w •O x N z z w O 0 a m a N W N W b N a Y u
W
7
n
n
a
a
n
n
a
n
n
n
a
4 F F O o F n
N
N
N C
rE ?-1 N
N N
N
N
N N
U• b
N N N
ry
O
O y
O N
O
O
O
m
m r v v F
O v v y0 v v v

H C
d C
d
4. C
W C'
d
4 1"
6 C
6 C
d
a
?

N
K

w
L

i; P
1
7 N

O
Z
E
N
>

>

%

u
N

O
t/1

7
r a r a a W
Z N W •a a
r ur r
a 4
>

N
M x
W U
O
N
N
L C m

o

o
? +1

a r
m
u N
m

e O

b
0 O

b
0
H
o? S W r

O
» r b
O
-r
N .
i [
m r N
r v
C W
a m
7 a+ O
3
a W
m o a

ro
N
? o
-.1 w F
H w W
G. W G b
? O r
b m F n n n n n o q e v o N
r y P O n n N N ? n
b U O q q O n n .r O
N b P P H N m n
w F b s o v o 0
n C'1 N rr ti
w
r n r b n .r O N q m r n O n N n
S •7 r r CIO,
O m n q q r q N N N q N N N n n n
F Q O O q N N b m N N n m
q N
{Fp U .. n b b .+ .'+ .. N b b
4 P N
? -41
'
F
O
F
' C 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w 0 0 0 0 0
F o o o 0 0
p
..] O O O O O O O N O O N N N O O n
q o o P P N N o N .. „ o b
N b b b m
C O O O
w P b n n n .. n n n n
QF N ?
y
F N b n b b b O O q q q q Or b q n
Z n m O O m O
f N m q q q ~ N N N N
a b o b 0 0
d
? w
u
m K m O P b b b O O O q q q b N b m
O b b N n O `
O m v b n ? n - ?°. N N
,, ,Q o N o 0
6 } N N •+ .-r
C
O
'? y .. b b b 0 o n .n+ ?
m ? z n b b b 0 0 0 0
O 2 P o o 0 0
m F
m
z
a U
?
A Z m .+ O S 7 7
a y 3 w 44
tm+ O .?. z I O ? ? ? ?
m ? U ? U ? 7 Z 7 OU U
C„ O . E y y X
E. C u ? O >' 6 `C 4 4 Z Z 4 4 ?' O
Of .] ? a ?? U w w w w F F w w y m
C m w
w Z ? ?' O O O O O o O o O O m
y w m F o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n
O w Y .+ ? 4 O n o O b b m
w U 7 O .? .? .y N N r1 N
m w •O O ?`+
o. s
M .7
o -a m
v c Y c
J. 4Fl fwal G ? a0i m _ '? .mi E N \ n
M U a O x V U R ^r M R N
4 b L .+ C R R M cn N m
N C m a m C V m 01 > O N
N C7 w - .-Ui U y m m = G O O n m x
Y 7 b J Z O U ?+ m m p O
0 ro D -
? Fr y > C C '+ 6 4 f. P wM
E m
E; rv? q u _ m W m a? a m
J w o x O 0
y, - O .? H D m O >. 3 3 6 R .Ui
V 0 O f. ? L O o -.. 9 6
a F n W .. ~
01 F > y Ir c f. J o m 1r U ro
7 >a w a 9 m ? 6 a m O O P m w D 'O
y .? m d Z 'O O M lr a 7 E ? ? u O a m m
U w - 9 R V m C! t. 0 m U U ro a - m W m
m .y 6 0 0 0 N ? V O m E U Ol C O
7 L P a? N m m O. C R m C M O
Z w - N J J ti R W w Yr '.? w w? .Oi
N O Z U .y ,mi ? m U• U U ? .O•r a ? O O .r y m
F t H a a g w J m w w .. 7 a u a a 0 m r. m
U K > m -+ P m Ir C m m > 6 E E P Y A m m a
> > L 9 la 4 N? O 9 'O m R a a r M G
O.
y 4 Y u .-r m m •-' r' m E s. m m m m m R .0 d L
V U R J?? P M 7 7 a 0 O. H H O. >? C a s 'O
F x O 4) O m R 0 Ci m .+ o O 1+ +? ? ?. O a 0 0 u m G
U w C m Y f n 9 6 ?. tl m U W N w F 3 E m '] y N a
w m
7 .7 .] m n .] J m n n J ..7 -.O. w n n
2 F F u O o F F F F s. f. n N
a o O a ? o o O m O O A D o 0
F. F. \ m o F F 3 o F F 4 0 0
m m n ? '? n n
O .r m O .+ P P
C ?•. b w u b .. O b b
O m N •? U O M N
? N d m N. L N
• m m o 3 o G o 0
m 7 v w v v O v v
m U C O ? C C L w' z
H s, w a u E ? ? v O ? ?
R m m
L m 9 y .mi d U m U m y y
u 7 J ? H > > O 7 ZD
c •.. O m u a a
y
a U tl .7 ? w
y M C
`a m E O
m o m o m o
.,m, O r ? w q
J tl y m w m
n
n O O q O
O V m •
O a b
? w w o 0 0
b n O n O
N F o
0 0 4 W
o S
0 0 0 0 0
N H F
y 9
G w
• R m
h ? O ? 3
R w
N K O
F
M W w b
? w w ? o
b O? - ? F N ro- O F1 V P N N N
r1 . N
O f'?1 A O n N N
u
y ? V o .a N .+ .. r N N N
.
m F
n C7
.a 4
W
td
E .] ? F N n? m o o rn N v a . N N f?l .?

F a t0
O 1r1 O
O N O O
N M ro
m r n
?O ?O
A m N N

O N
/?f
F U o N ~ N
of
D
..] N n
ro P
N .. m
t7 ro
b
M
M
F
O
F
? o o? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o
[u o 0 0 0 ? o
x
F
o
0
0
0
0
O
J O O M O O P A O O A N N M HI
a O A O O N N O N N N N

W' rl
O N
N
O N
O m O
N O M
[d n P
F r1 N N O N P1
F n? P o o n r N m s a o 0 0
2 o m r o N v m N o
f•
d N N
O
O f'1
O N
O
N N

N

N
O
H N

Y O
W
1
i
u
d
? S'
b N
O O
N O
O O.
O

O O
m N N N
n P O

ti M N

? N
N O
O O
M
? O - O O - - O
W ? n N b n N
~
C
?
i
a N o o n .. o? o o o
b W o 0
V 0 0 0. o
S
O x
Z n
o
0
0 n
0
0
m ? .r
m
K
m U
L
a Z m n
?
h
W
7
A . •.O.
~
Y ? 3? m
/ z
4 m
U
a
i U •
+ ? U U
C
.
. F K u
01 .7 7 m O
7 >f >?
N y W
.7 W
m W
.7 W
.] >.
y 6
[u a
to
C R7 m W
G7 ?+ 2
? N
o 0
o
O
O
o
0
0
m to m ? F o O o n o o ?o •v v
w a es
O G1 x Y +1 -C
a N N
P P
O
O
O
O e
N
f'rl
W C.) r•I
m ? to •O ? 7
? d? N .-1 O
a r
M O
T O
T N r1 .a
a s .+
M 7 P .. P P
O - 3
U a Y m
N
F. O
>. w w Gl r
e
O m
.+ 7
U
W? U? w m p N U~ m
? Sa O
6 m L w d m x A t P m d s,
o z m
• N a --f .n ?.
i0 F .. c
'O i0 u u
O i0 X c
ti
x m
W w
H t7 W
• Y 7 W m
G U
O N m
t W

N X

til
O
d
tr
7 /' N
U m m +i
M N C
.+ m U 6/
m c m w Y \
3
O iE
f.

it .]
Y C4 R
.+ O a 0 0)
3 V
ra E 99
>
m F
m H X O W
L >+ H N
O w .y O 'O O M
'O C N A .+ O
C M
D u
7 4

to .] Y a .+
O >. O z N
W n m p
m M
a m m
W c
O v
•ti O
m .? N
U O Y
a c f+ Y
0 O o
7 ?o Y m m
m C D o
Y O r m m
Y m
m m 7 U
O
U Gl U

m I

m
"'
u
o O
C U
m O' r
W
.+o m .ti 9 b

v- ? . O. C
?+ n
a O
d'
d d w
Y 7
m? m
Y
m
N N > C
.+ O O L M O
7 m C O O
3 w O m
m E L
? C
O L C
N m
N
0 u 3 m
m C O O d -
V Y u C .~+
-» d o a u m
w m O
u m
O m Y
> u v
>
F
V C O N
.. z m O m C
u E X m m O
7 w .. N n a
.+ - O
U M
41 m
.7 E
.7

a 4 m
C 4
O
a c O
.? F u
M o0
P o
T O F C o
N
? m
N

N ro
W
a
?u
N
N
O N
O ?O
O U
C
m
O
m
m V
Ix O V

C V

K V

C

7 m

R V

5
H
A G
7 d d G
b Y
co G
7
L C
N C
O
w N a
N C
N
m
O cn
N
U 7 O O 7 O Y M O
m s u a m a
N
?

N +?
N
m O O O
m
Gf >
O
y m .7 m
0 0 0
o u m
O
\ G7
? W
vi
o n
O

4 O
O O
O \ W
`a
O O
N .a F O
N ?
C G1
N m
? h Y n ? 3
a m
m n a

n
ro
q o
++ w F
Sa w W
W W n D
H o f
N N
N ?fl
n n
N N ? N
N 1r1 Nf
• m m
n -
N N
b b
0 0 o
0
0
N N ? N
0 0 ? o
0
O
O O ? O
O ?
0 0 o
0
O
t 4
til [u
0 0
0 0
r r
H N
O
d
a
d
4
m
9 m
ti
m
C U Gm
L O1 ?
G w C
d C d
L Y
c x e
V
O O O
7 E 7
a
4
F
o O
o F
N
m ?
w
L O
G V
.?i
a a
C N
O
7
N
O
0
?o
O
b o F r

b U
m F
n ()
.+ 4
Z

d
td y
S a F

e•• a W
o
F U
? a
N
F

• m
• S
O •
a
4
I
W
F
G
i
F
Z E
d
0
m
u
m z
O
O
?. m
4
d a

O
m
m K
M
O
Z
m
d'
u
m U
u ?
Z
D m ••••
m - C1 3
m S
w O u 41
C
d U U
m
E. K u u
G
m
R
a O
k
.
.
m..
41 2
>•
m m m
w G a w
FZ
O to Y
d U .+ G
?
m m v a
a s ^.
L a
O - 3
U 4 Y
F ? •O
>. IC 41 C
E ? C m
>. U
4 b L
O Y. m
N 4
fA U• ?+.
Y 7
? w m
U b
m o
w a
?6 F
m F
J
m a
O
O
7
C:
U
m
7
O
K
d
N N
N N
N N
0 0 • o
N a
N m m
• A r P
O O i O
O
o •
0
O
0
4 4
O O
0 0
O O
n r
O
w
N
o+
H m
m Ol
4
? i
+? O 7
m U U
m O1 t
Y J C
is D m
C w
fp d 61
d Y m
> u >
a f a
? G
m F
at o O
M O F
N
7
U N
N
L o
m V V
w C
m
d'
w w d
m
J m
d'

U d
> N
7
G
m
a
y
W
n
m O
d
O
V O?
M

O
O
V
m O

b
\ 41
N F d O
o O
o \ ti
o
r
F

1 C 41
m L
7 u O
~
3
m m
m ? a
N

M
4 0
F
w w m
b

N N
N N
n M N
N
n n r
A A

.a .a
N N N r N• N
N b ? b • O T O? • O?
• O !
n
N N
.-• rl b

N

.-• N N
ti N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
O O
N ..
? 0 0 0
N b ? ro 0 0 0 o

• N • b

N O ? O
O
P A A
O O O O P
?
o . r r
.
b b
0
n r r
0 0 ? 0
0

o ? O b m? m

N N
r
0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
N
? n r
o n
Z
G
a

a
a G m
G
i
i u
i i
a
O O O O O
0 0

O O

N N 0
b

M 0 0

N
N N
N N
O
m
W C ?

V
01
L
m
w C
m J
D
w
>
d
v
G
m L ti
Qt
a o,

? c
s m
a .
+ O D
7
O1 O
? U m
a b
b
2
a, Q1
C w t m
d u
N
m D7 d m N m
6 C
m ?
N •O
O
C Y F m m N 3
O N O > H w O
•] E C a J F ?
A a a D n a
N F F U N F
O O
o F O
F
7

a O
o F
N s

•a
D r

o

N b
N
•6
b
F N m N
Z
G o
V al
Ul
N o
V
d C m K

? d m
01 •O
O d
m z c o a
O
O Y
C Ol
O m
C4 m
d ?
O d O

O m
w
a F a
M
O

A M
O
b
O
C O
0
O N r P P
O N N ? n M
O P N A A
r N
N ?•1 O?
m
n n n
N N
O O O N m
O O• O • O• M b r b
•n n
O m r r
P

N ••1 ••1 n
n r N
N b b
0 0 o 0 0 0 0
0
o 0
O
0 0 o o 0 0 o
0 0 o 0 0
•0 0
O 0
O
O M M
n N
..
b n M
N n r
• b b r b

• n P N N
m m
r r
n
b n n o
M O O
N r r
r N N
• O O
o b b b

N O b b
N r r
T
' o o r o o
O O O
• N ?!1 N
N
m M
0
U m
m 3

G G U U
O O
m o O
0 O O
0 0
O
N ti .+ O O
N i(1
Y Y
V d
L L E
V a• 0?
7 41
N d'
• a d
0
v u z

m a
v
m
C tq r 3
N
L
O ra
V m
O L;
t F
!]

S
E
V
Ci o u
o V C
V m U
a C D O
E
C 6 Y
d 3 U
V
a d
f >

v
d o
i c F
m w
m N w
F.
b m
w w m re
m C
w
A a a n a
N F F O C N F.

ul o F F O U F
C W
d 3 N
L
V O
.? 4.
? Gl
F b
P

7 m z m
d' o
N
E o m
3 U
Z o
W GS U C
C d tFi1 47 7• d
a ? u 'o ' m
w _ O W 0
m a u a N
M
M
O >
>
? r-•
41 r
A C. O•
n
O
r
A n
O

b
b
O O
0 O

b .+
.? .r I F
. y m
y o
O P
0 n
b o
o n
m y o
N y
r .+
b ? n n
'v a a

b O
? U
P
s
b
o
In
P
o
.+
e
b b b
.y N N O e N N N
W
r C'1 F m
m N
.1 m
N P P P
lfl y y
,y Q Z n ? r n
y
W 7 r r
E .] . F
y m .+
Vl .-I P n
O N I n
N o I b
O y n
e O o r
N Ul y b
r Ill b b b b
N N
F Q
F O
U m
P m N
Q N m N
P y
O O

~ m P P P
W
?
„? N m m r•1 .-I
n e e
N Vl n
n Ul N N
r r r
Q
F r r r
'
O
E
z m o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 1 b
?
-
w y .n
m o
m 0 0 0 t
n n
•
x
F m
P
o
0
0
0 0 0 0
•
O .+ m m m M
.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M
Q O O O O O P P
P P
K O O O O O
p? b b b
E
I
?
?
I "+
M, M M
H o o . o P n I n . o I P .. b m n n P r ? r I n
2
'E o e e
r
P n
y n y
y r r
U1 o r
- O o
N
N
d O N
.+ m
.-? .I
O
M
N
O O O

W I I ? I
u
Cl
K
O
o 0
o
0
0 0
b m
. o
m
o
In
y
e r

m
P n
b r
P
o
o 0 0
O
sa m
4
0
.+ e

ro
b
r - P
o b
•
n
n
n
a a y n N .+ ., N I
I
I
V b
C N N N
O I I . I ? I
Y y O O O r N O y P m Ill y y

K
O
O N
N N

N O

N P

O m

m m
$.
}
I
O
S
2

O

O
n

n
V
O

O
m
b b b
L Q '
m ? I ^I .-I N

L
m U
U
U
2 m o a o
a
m
a - m ; x ? ?
m x
d I U +Li W
U ?
U G
U G
U o
U
d ?
>. U
I E
y
m
m
m
m

m m
m
F w u
01 -1 m m O
I 7 ? z
I. O
7 T
U O
7 O
h O
'] T
U >•
U ?•
U >•
y O O O
'] '! 7
C m m 4
W 2
I !?
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O o O
y W 0
w Q .] w I F
I z o O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0
O w Y
?+• U
. I Q

7 O

N .-I O

O .-I .-I .-I ul

m O

O y

m O .-I .+ .-I
w '0 O
co
y E„ d < n m
N m
N
m
w .a
O 3
b
b
a
m
U F
N
d
C
E
u
T W W C r
W y X i
-.
E? a' R O 0
U
f
a
U
U
m
?
m
Q b U t X F w y~ m 4 D u
O ?_ y? C -.
i
L y
• N Q M U 0 7 b •"• cc O w y y d X O b ? ` C w
y U V. O N G m E C ? G m IE r1 (L
H w co
-
n e
- a
O
C
?
F Q
y N
a
O
a U
U b a m E C w G. X d m E 5 10 .7
W O

w .7 ?
w
w w

y w

m O w

O m

Q

w
y
w
U U
.-. O•
z y
4
U O
O
m 4.
m G
m F w 4 w w a .7 3 2 0 o ., e a m F
m .F.

O w a. w

4. w m

m

® a

Q y

w o m
o m

U P 7
? u
- U
w e

c
R®

L

w
O
Z. ? a o o w u b ? o o is o b
m O
x= u.
w T
3 w ?.
y
2 S
U C y
O • m O O
C P T
3 w 1'
U U O
Ia ••+ N
U O L L O u U
b
O =
z
? C O
J
- T7
F O
U P e
X X
L
U
9 w
m
N w\ Q Ol C- O Q E ?+. E >• a Ol c- ..
.
C U
U' y d y C 7 w 2 C w 'O T U 'O y C 7 w N
y W 0
m z h LL
y
y .+ w
7 u .7
7 .7
Q d
w O
x m
„ 0 o v O F
u y a .+ w
u O
E 9 L N
ti m Ol
F
U- w 0
? F X
?
C m T
S E u Q
x >
O C
l+. w
C d
4 •.? b M
y n N -, e w
y r? 16 - T
x E u :+]
z 7
3 a y
w
?3
n
a m
w
n
a E
W
a
a z
a
a
.3 a .3
o
z G
F ? a
F a Q
F Q
F
K
o
o
N G
F < G Q
F F
O
m
m O
H ?.
O O
F m
G O
F O
F
? o o O
F O O
F F

a
..7 a a
y w N N +
m cn n rm O o n
? O
d N
N O C
C7 O
N O N
-
m IO Y
V y O
V 2
O
a O
V O
V O
v

m
C. w z z s

..
w
m K
y m C7 O
. C F
w a a a
? o z » a Q u cn w a
L
u d
y y
> .7
>
Y d
W u
z y
z y
z
f
C
m
? 4
2
«7 C
a O
U
,
m
a

N

M

e
w
>
m
.

L r
P r
P n
P W
C

I -A n
O n
O
O
O IC I b b b ?
\ w
y F I (y I O O O C
0 0
o \ f
w
b
N + F +
co

C W
0
m ? 3

' m W
m ? a
N
• Q M
O
++ w F

` w w W
m w ? b
o