20110313 Ver 1_401 Application_20110411

x
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 20 1 10 3 1 3
[phone] fa x:[phone]
Letter of Transmittal
Sheet No.: I of 1
To: Date: 04/04/2011 Our Job No.: 2514331
NCDWQ
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
@ p V LS
APR 0 5 2011
am- MISOLII `m
VEMMMMOTM"M
File Code:" j
Attention: Mr. Ian McMillan
Reference: Coulwood Sidewalk Project JD and NWP #3 and
#27
We Are ®Attached ?Under Separate Cover via ®Overnite ?2nd Day ?Regular mail the following items:
Sending:
?Shop Drawings ?Prints ?Sepias ?Mylars ?Samples ?Change Order
?Copy of Letter ?Reports ?Specifications ?Cost Estimates ?Electronic Media
®Other: Coulwood Sidewalk Project JD and NWP #3
Item Rev. Quantity Description
No.
2
Action Codes:
5 Coulwood Sidewalk Project request for JD and
NWP #3 and #27
1 Check No. 399846
G
A. Action Indicated on Item Transmitted C. For Your Use E. For Igformaiion Only G. For Approval
B. See Remarks Below D. As Requested F. For Review & Comment
Remarks Mr. McMillan,
Attached, please find five copies of the Coulwood Sidewalk Project NWP #3 and #27
and Request for Jurisdictional Determination submittal for approval and check No. 399846 for
$570.00.
Copies Brian Cole, USFWS
Signed: Brandon Phillips, CHMM
Action Code
an employee-owned company providing quality service since 1912
a?
U y
U N t?A
CIS
O 'v
4-1
U
? ? O O
U
o x .?
CJ Cd
V o a ° a
a b
o `? u A 4-4 3
A ?
a 3 CJ z? b z
ct o
3 ow v' .9 v ono
o C ,? ?, Z
`o C? ?• y L" O ^?
z
W W Q; U M 60
> W-4
En
N M ?t to? Ile
00 01 ,N. i
a?
a
Account Number:
2504054 399846 STV
INVOICE NO. INVOICE DATE VOUCHER NO. AMOUNT
031611B 3/18/2011 03111013
TOTAL: 570.00
570.00
ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
For Inquiries Call 610-385-8322
DATE 3/21/2011
1Ay ***************************570 DOLLAR9**********00 CENTS $`************570.00
'0 THE NC Division of Water Quality
)RDER 1628 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
OF .?.tdl.
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1628 US
A HOflI SIGNATU I
3
C
4
a
c
(4
4
a
a
v
11'000039984611' 1:03L375979i: 8&2103375611'
1
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
March 29, 2011
Via FEDERAL EXPRESS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Ms. Amanda Jones
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to
Nationwide Permits No. 3 and No. 27
Proposed Coulwood Sidewalk Project
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Jones:
In cooperation with STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates (STV/RWA), Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services (CSWS) is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) application
form (Attachment A) in accordance with General Condition No. 27 and pursuant to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Nationwide Permits (NWPs) Number 3 - Maintenance
and Number 27 - Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities
(Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 10; updated March 19, 2007). A Request for Jurisdictional
Determination regarding the approximate location and extent of jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
within the approximate 5.15 acre project study area (PSA), including a Request for Jurisdictional
Determination form, figures, photographs, stream assessment forms, Routine Wetland
Determination Data Form, an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form and an
Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map is found in Attachment B. Accompanying
figures and permit drawings are included in Attachment C.
Project Description
The PSA encompasses approximately 5.15 acres of a developed residential neighborhood
along Gum Branch Road, where a stream crosses through the front yards of the residential
dwellings in the area of Kentberry Drive and Brimwood Trail in the northwest portion of
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC (Attachment C - Figures 1, 2, and 3). As part of the
Coulwood Sidewalk Project, CSWS proposes to replace four existing undersized culverts with
buried box culverts that include floodplain culverts. Each proposed box culvert that will be
replacing an existing undersized culvert would consist of a large 7' X 4' "low-flow" reinforced
concrete box culvert paired with a perched 7' X 2' reinforced concrete floodplain box culvert for
higher flow events. The floodplain culverts would be tied into the up and downstream channel
reaches using bankfull benches to maintain the channel dimensions in the vicinity of the
an employee-owned company providing quality service since 1912
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
culverts. Each box culvert has a riprap lined plunge pool and riprap apron at the outlet to
dissipate flow velocities exiting the culverts. Plunge pools with riprap aprons are proposed in
lieu of riprap aprons alone to decrease the amount of permanent impacts. Additionally,
approximately 608 linear feet of the remaining portion of the degraded, unnamed perennial
tributary of Gum Branch {Perennial relatively permanent water (RPW) Stream Al will be restored
and enhanced by laying back and stabilizing the banks and installing instream grade control
structures that include outlet step structures on the proposed riprap plunge pools and an
instream cross vane (Attachment C - Sheet 1 of 6). A cast-in-place concrete headwall for a 53"
X 34" elliptical pipe culvert would be placed in the northeast portion of the project site and would
discharge to a riprap lined ditch that would tie into a riprap apron at the inlet to the longest of the
proposed box culverts that will convey Perennial RPW Stream A under both Gum Branch Road
and Kentberry Drive (Attachment C - Sheet 1 A of 6). The three buried box culverts that include
floodplain culverts will be used to replace four existing undersized culverts (Attachment C -
Sheet 2 of 6).
Stream channel enhancements will include stream bank stabilization and an in-stream grade
control structure. The stream bank stabilization would consist of boulder toe protection, and the
creation of stream bankfull benches. The regraded soils along the stream banks would be
stabilized with temporary biodegradable matting with a native riparian seed mix. The in-stream
grade control structure would consist of a rock cross vane with a log step. Utility relocations
within the area would be required. Temporary stream crossings to maintain access to residential
driveways would also be required (Attachment C - Sheets 1 and 3 of 6).
The erosion control measures that include silt fence, safety fence and temporary sediment
control structures shall be put in place prior to construction. A temporary rock silt check shall be
maintained downstream of any work that could flow to Perennial RPW Stream B (Gum Branch).
All work shall be subject to pump around operations when performed in the live channel.
Channel work will be sequenced from upstream to downstream areas. New channel sections
will be completed and in a stable form before diverting stream flows into the new channel
sections. All disturbed areas will be restored to their pre-construction state upon work
completion.
The proposed stream improvements will include the use of temporary cofferdams and
temporary slope drains during construction as part of a pump-around plan to provide continued
base flow to the downstream areas of RPW Stream A while working in dry conditions. Based on
the drawings prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., one cross vane with a log step will
be installed within the stream in the central portion of the PSA to provide grade control and
enhanced instream habitat. This permanent grade control structure will be constructed from
stone that is lined with filter fabric, and have an added log step to mimic a natural log headcut.
(Attachment C - Sheet 3 of 6). Details on the proposed grade control structure, riprap plunge
pools and riparian seedings are depicted on Attachment C - Sheet 2A of 6.
The proposed project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 63 linear feet (378
square feet/<.01 acre) of the on-site stream (Perennial RPW Stream A). Perennial RPW Stream
A is a jurisdictional, perennial RPW that was concluded to be aquatically important. These
permanent impacts would occur from the replacement of the existing, undersized pipe culverts
and the construction of the riprap lined plunge pool and riprap apron at the outlet. These
impacts would be done under the requested Nationwide Permit #3.
Page 2
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
The proposed project would also result in temporary impacts to approximately 608 linear feet
(3,648 square feet/0.08 acre) of Perennial RPW Stream A. These temporary impacts would
result from the temporary stream crossings required to maintain access to residential driveways,
and the channel improvements that will include bank stabilization, flood bench construction and
the removal of debris from the existing channel. These temporary impacts, when completed, will
result in an overall net increase in the stream's aquatic resource functions. These impacts
would be done under the requested Nationwide Permit #27. Utility relocations undertaken in the
PSA as part of the project would result in no additional impacts to waters of the U.S.
Waters of the U.S. within the PSA and project impacts are described below.
Background
As noted on aerial photography (2009) viewed on the Mecklenburg County GIS, and verified by
field review, the PSA is largely developed as a residential development in an urban setting with
a roadway and undeveloped, maintained, grassed lawns. Stream A is located in the
undeveloped, maintained, grassed lawn areas situated in the front yards of the residential
properties. These front yard areas are dominated by maintained grassed lawns with mature
trees including red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white ash
(Fraxinus americans), and water oak (Quercus nigra). The banks of the stream channel are
dominated by saplings of the aforementioned tree species as well as box elder (Acer negundo),
and shrubs that include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and willow (Salix sp.). Herbaceous vegetation within the banks
of the stream channel included soft rush (Juncus effusus), violets (Viola sp.), and goldenrod
(Solidago sp.).
The PSA is relatively level to gently sloping along the stream corridor. The stream becomes a
perennial RPW in the northeast portion of the PSA, at the confluence of two drainage ditches
that originate outside of the PSA.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the PSA, as described below, are limited to the two
jurisdictional, perennial streams (See Attachment B - Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field
Map). The Request for Jurisdictional Determination form to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) is found in Attachment B. Representative photographs of the PSA are also found in
Attachment B.
Prior to fieldwork, the following references were reviewed to identify possible waters of the U.S.,
including wetland areas:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quad Mountain Island Lake,
NC (1999)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) On-line Wetlands
Mapper (http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey
of Mecklenburg County NC, (1980)
• List of Hydric Soils of North Carolina, prepared by the USDA (1995)
Page 3
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
Mecklenburg County Property Ownership Land Records Information System
(POLARIS)
NRCS Soil Series Data, Mecklenburg County, NC (2002)
The USGS topographic quad depicts two streams within the PSA as blue line streams (Stream
A and Stream B). The NWI map depicts Stream B as a potential jurisdictional feature within the
PSA. The NRCS Soil Series Data soils map also depicts Stream B within the PSA and depicts
the following soils within the PSA (Attachment B - Figure 3):
EnD - Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
MO - Monacan loam
Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (EnD) is a well drained soil found on side slopes in
uplands. Permeability is considered slow and the available water capacity is medium. EnD is
found throughout the north central, southeastern, and western portion of the PSA. Monacan
loam (MO) is a somewhat poorly drained soil that is nearly level and found along streams and
drainageways. Permeability is moderate and the available water capacity is high. MO is found
along the stream corridors of the PSA. MO is listed as a hydric soil due to inclusions of the
Wehadkee, undrained soil type.
The POLARIS map depicts two streams within the PSA (Stream A and Stream B).
Methods
On March 11, 2011, STV/RWA Senior Environmental Specialist Brandon Phillips, C.H.M.M. and
Environmental Scientist Anthony Nardo field reviewed the PSA for potential jurisdictional waters
of the U.S, including wetlands, and potential protected species habitat. Jurisdictional waters are
defined by 33 CFR 328.3(b) and protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344). The potential jurisdictional stream channel was classified according to recent North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and USACE guidance. A stream assessment was
conducted utilizing the USACE Wilmington District Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and
the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form. The USACE and NCDWQ stream assessment forms
are included in Attachment B.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. located within the PSA are limited to two stream channels
(Stream A and Stream B); reference Attachment B - Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field
Map for the approximate location of these jurisdictional features. No wetlands are located within
the PSA (Attachment B - Routine Wetland Determination Data Form). The jurisdictional
boundaries of the streams have not yet been field verified by the USACE Asheville Regulatory
Field Office. A Request for Jurisdictional Determination is included as Attachment B. Stream A
flows from the northeast to the southwest through the PSA. Stream A begins in the eastern
portion of the PSA at the confluence of two drainage ditches (Attachment B - Photograph 1)
and flows southwest under Gum Branch Road (Attachment B - Photographs 2 and 3) and
Kentberry Drive (Attachment B - Photograph 4). Stream A continues through the front yard of a
residential dwelling along Gum Branch Road (Attachment B - Photograph 5), under a driveway
to another residential dwelling (Attachment B - Photograph 6), through the front yards of two
other residential dwellings along Gum Branch Road (Attachment B - Photographs 7 and 8), and
eventually under Brimwood Trail (Attachment B - Photograph 9) and into Perennial RPW
Page 4
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
Stream B (Attachment B - Photograph 10). Perennial RPW Stream B (Gum Branch) drains to
Long Creek (Perennial RPW), which in turn, drains to the Catawba River, a traditional navigable
water (TNW).
Perennial RPW Stream A, an unnamed tributary of Gum Branch, originates in the eastern
portion of the PSA at a confluence of two drainage ditches. Perennial RPW Stream A is
depicted on the USGS topographic quadrangle and exhibited a well-defined bed and bank,
moderate flow, weak sinuosity, and substrate consisting of clay, sand, silt, and rock. Stream
channel widths were 5 to 7 feet and bank heights were 2 to 4 feet. Aquatic life, including
crayfish, was observed in the stream, although the macrobenthic aquatic life appeared limited.
Representative photographs of Perennial RPW Stream A are included in Attachment B -
Photographs 1 through 10.
Perennial RPW Stream B (Gum Branch) originates southeast of the PSA, and flows through the
western portion of the PSA from the southeast to the northwest. Perennial RPW Stream B is
depicted on the USGS topographic quadrangle and NRCS Soil Series Data and exhibited a
well-defined bed and bank, strong flow, weak sinuosity, and substrate consisting of clay, sand,
silt, rock, and cobble. Stream channel widths were approximately 45 feet and bank heights
were 8 to 10 feet. A representative photograph of Perennial RPW Stream B is included in
Attachment B -Photograph 10.
More information on stream characteristics associated with Perennial RPW Stream A can be
found on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheets included in Attachment B. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos)
Form is also included in Attachment B.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Coulwood Sidewalk Project culvert replacement and stream restoration is to
alleviate flooding for the residential properties located along Gum Branch Road and enhance
the aquatic functions of Stream A. The severely undersized pipe culverts will be replaced by
larger box culverts with associated floodplain culverts. The Coulwood Sidewalk Project also
proposes to reshape the cross section of Perennial RPW Stream A from an incised/vertical bank
channel to a channel with bankfull benches and gentler bank slopes to provide for more flood
storage, and to alleviate stream bank erosion. Identified problems within the properties
surrounding the PSA and stream channel include the flooding of residential yards, and the
erosion of the stream bank.
Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
The project involves culvert replacements and channel improvements along approximately 671
linear feet of an existing degraded stream (Perennial RPW Stream A) located in a residential
development in an urban setting. Enhancement activities will include improvements to the
channel's alignment, profile, and cross-sectional dimensions to reduce flooding, reduce erosion
and sedimentation, and enhance the instream riparian habitat. Stabilization of the stream banks
will include riparian plantings and an instream grade control structure.
Project plans will result in permanent impacts to approximately 63 linear feet (<0.01 acre) of
Perennial RPW Stream A, in the three areas where the riprap lined plunge pools and aprons are
Page 5
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
proposed at the outlets from the three box culverts. Each proposed riprap lined plunge pool and
apron located at the outlets of the box culverts is approximately 21 feet in length.
Temporary impacts will occur to the remaining 608 linear feet (approximately 0.08 acre) of
Perennial RPW Stream A during the enhancement/construction activities. No impacts to
Perennial RPW Stream B (Gum Branch) are proposed.
Avoidance and Minimization
Due to the nature of the project, avoiding impacts to Perennial RPW Stream A while achieving
project goals is not possible. There is no practicable alternative that would achieve the project
purpose of restoring the stability and enhancing the stream that would avoid or result in less
impact to waters of the U.S. Plunge pools with riprap aprons are proposed in lieu of riprap
aprons alone to decrease the amount of permanent impacts. Best management practices
(BMPs) will be used and appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls will be installed and
maintained during construction activities to allow for the least adverse effect on the stream
channel and associated water quality.
Sedimentation and erosion control plans have been prepared for pre-construction and final
conditions of the PSA. Sedimentation and erosion control devices were designed in accordance
with appropriate City and State erosion and sediment control ordinances and will thereby equal
or exceed the requirements specified in the latest version of the North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Manual. The initial excavation and grading of the stream channel would be
done in the dry using cofferdams and diversion ditches for the pump-around operation, with
sedimentation and erosion control devices clear of any jurisdictional waters.
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to follow the
General Conditions of the USACE Nationwide Permits (Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 10;
updated March 19, 2007), applicable USACE Wilmington District Regional Conditions, and
applicable NCDWQ consistency conditions (November 2007).
Compensatory Mitigation
As described above, efforts have been made to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the
U.S. to the maximum extent practicable. The replacement of the existing culverts and the
enhancement of the stream channel will result in minor permanent impacts of 63 linear feet of
stream channel (See Attachment C - Sheet 3 of 6). Stream enhancement is a typically
accepted method of providing compensatory mitigation and is one of the purposes of this
project. Proposed channel improvements such as bank stabilization using toe protection and an
instream grade control structure, bankfull bench construction, removal of debris from the
existing channel and the native plantings that are proposed will reestablish the biological and
chemical integrity of this reach of stream and result in an overall net increase in the stream's
aquatic resource functions. Therefore, no additional compensatory mitigation requirements are
anticipated. CSWS is not pursuing mitigation credit for this project.
Stormwater Management Plan
A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) for the project will not be required due to the nature of
the project. No impervious surfaces are proposed. According to Charlotte's Post-Construction
Controls Ordinance (PCCO) as viewed on the Mecklenburg County POLARIS web site,
Page 6
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
Perennial RPW Stream A has a 35-foot PCCO buffer within the PSA. Additional development
as a result of this project is not anticipated.
Cultural Resources
A review of historic and archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed Coulwood Sidewalk
Project culvert replacement and stream enhancement PSA was conducted. The National
Register was consulted and indicated that there are no sites listed on the National Register
within one mile of the PSA. The Mecklenburg County POLARIS web site was reviewed and
showed no historic resources located within one mile from the PSA. Considering the limited
impacts to waters of the U.S. as a result of this project, the likelihood of unidentified cultural
resources being present in the proposed permit area is considered remote.
Protected Species
STV/RWA conducted a protected species habitat assessment and review of the PSA on March
11, 2011. Prior to the field reviews, STV/RWA reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases, which provided
existing data concerning the potential occurrence of federally and state protected (threatened or
endangered) species in Mecklenburg County. These databases indicate that there are federal
and state threatened or endangered species that may occur in Mecklenburg County. These
protected species and their respective physical descriptions and habitat requirements are
described below.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevipata) - Federal/State Endangered
The smooth coneflower grows up to 1.5 meters tall and contains large (approximately 20
centimeters [cm] in length and 7.5 cm in width) basal leaves. The stem of the plant is smooth
with few leaves. The flower consists of rays that are light pink to purplish, usually drooping and
are five to eight cm long. This perennial plant generally occurs in basic to circumneutral soils of
meadows and woodlands. The plant, which typically blooms in June, has been found growing in
habitats that include upland oak-hickory or mixed oak-pine forests, old field habitat, transmission
line rights-of-way (R/Ws), and roadsides. Smooth coneflower is an associate of the Piedmont
Prairie community type, often found growing with populations of Schweinitz's sunflower. This
plant is listed as a current record for Mecklenburg County, and there is one documented
population located approximately 12 miles northwest of Charlotte.
No individuals of smooth coneflower were observed within the PSA. There are records of
smooth coneflower currently being located in the Mountain Island Lake, NC USGS quadrangle.
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of
the nearest populations of smooth coneflower. The NCNHP has determined that populations of
smooth coneflower may be present within several miles of the PSA. The PSA lacks the proper
habitat requirements preferred by this species, so it is unlikely that smooth coneflower would be
found within the PSA. Based on the field review, the lack of habitat present and the available
databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on smooth coneflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - Federal/State Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant limited to the Piedmont counties of North
and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall from a cluster of tuberous
roots. The sunflower consists of a flower with a yellow disk and ray flowers formed on small
Page 7
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
heads. The disc is less than 1.5 cm across and the petals are two to three cm long. The
lanceolate leaves are opposite on the lower stem and alternate near the flowers. The typical
habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission line R/Ws, open areas, and
edges of upland woods. Periodically maintained R/Ws are typically considered good potential
habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Major characteristics of soils associated with suitable
Schweinitz's sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland interstream flats or gentle
slopes, those which are clayey in texture (and often with substantial rock fragments), those
which have a high shrink-swell capacity, and those which vary over the course of the year from
very wet to very dry. Flowering occurs from August to the first frost of the year.
No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed within the PSA. There are records of
Schweinitz's sunflower currently being located in the Mountain Island Lake, NC USGS
quadrangle. The NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine
the locations of the nearest populations of Schweinitz's sunflower. The NCNHP determined that
populations of Schweinitz's sunflower may be present within several miles of the PSA. The PSA
lacks the proper habitat requirements preferred by this species, so it is unlikely that that
Schweinitz's sunflower would be found within the PSA. Based on the field review, the lack of
habitat present and the available databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect'
on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) - Federal/State Endangered
The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoid shaped shell. The outer surface of this species
shell is yellowish, greenish, or brownish with greenish, blackish rays. The inner shell ranges
from iridescent to mottled pale orange. The average size of the Carolina heelsplitter is 78
millimeters. The Carolina heelsplitter is found in small to large streams and rivers as well as
ponds over a variety of substrates usually near stable, well-shaded stream banks. Most
individuals are found in undercuts and along shaded banks stabilized with extensive tree roots,
a buried log, or rocks. The Carolina heelsplitter requires waterways with well oxygenated clean
water. This mollusk is listed as an historical occurrence in Mecklenburg County. Six populations
of this mussel are presently known to exist, two of which occur within North Carolina. One small
remnant population occurs in the Catawba River system in Waxhaw Creek in Union County, and
another small population occurs in a short stretch of Goose Creek, a tributary to the Rocky River
in the Pee Dee River system, also in Union County.
Potential habitat does not exist within Perennial RPW Stream A or Perennial RPW Stream B
located within the PSA. No undercuts along shaded banks stabilized with extensive tree roots,
buried logs, or rocks are located within the PSA. Based on the field review, the lack of habitat
present and the available databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on the
Carolina heelsplitter.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - Federal/State Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from one to three feet
in height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate
leaflets. Most plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants
with both male and female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal,
erect, dense cluster, and colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June
Page 8
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
to July; the fruit, a red drupe, is produced through the months of August to October. Michaux's
sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. This plant reportedly
survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area. This plant is
restricted to seven counties in North Carolina, and is listed as historic in Mecklenburg County.
No individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed within the PSA. There are records of
Michaux's sumac historically being located in the Mountain Island Lake USGS quadrangle. The
NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of the
nearest populations of Michaux's sumac. The NCNHP determined that current populations of
Michaux's sumac are not present within several miles of the PSA. The PSA lacks the proper
habitat requirements preferred by this species, so it is unlikely that Michaux's sumac would be
found within the PSA. Based on the field review, the lack of habitat present and the available
databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on Michaux's sumac.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The list of protected species was reviewed, and evaluations were performed regarding the
likelihood of the presence of each species in the PSA. The PSA largely consists of regularly
maintained residential lawns and lacks maintained R/Ws or other periodically maintained areas.
Due to the habitat requirements for the three aforementioned protected plant species, the
habitat available within the PSA, and the findings of the field survey, it is determined that the
proposed project will have no effect on any of the protected species listed for Mecklenburg
County.
Closing
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] should you have any questions or concerns
regarding this request for jurisdictional determination and Nationwide Permits #3 and #27. Five
copies of this PCN have been forwarded to the NCDWQ. A copy has also been forwarded to
the USFWS Asheville Field Office pursuant to the final regional conditions for nationwide
permits in the Wilmington District.
Sincerely,
Isaac J. Hinson, P.W.S.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Wetland Specialist
Attachments: Attachment A: Pre-Construction Notification Form
Attachment B: Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Attachment C: Figures and Permit Drawings
cc: Brian Cole, Asheville Field Office, USFWS
Ian McMillan, NCDWQ
IJH/bjp
Page 9
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
Attachment A
Pre-Construction Notification Form
2 0 1 1 0 3 1 3
of uv rE
o`er` ' ,?G
A
m>
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
htiv t1% A
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
TZ Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 and 27 or General Permit (GP) number'
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Coulwood Sidewalk Project
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte APR 0

2d.
Subdivision name: 5 2011
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state

project no:

-WATERQUgtny
INIEWICI
SAND
$TIORI?g?p
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Jimmy Wright, Jr., Robert Michael Kinett, Darrell and Shirley Drum, Paul and Doris
Henderson, and Investment Inc. by Amend McClure Real Estate.
3b. Deed Book and Page No. From Charlotte-Mecklenburg GIS
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: Gum Branch Road
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
4b. Name: Isaac Hinson, P.W.S.
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (Isaac Hinson, P.W.S.)
4d. Street address: 600 East Fourth Street
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202-2844
4f. Telephone no.: 704 366-4495
4g. Fax no.: 704 366-6586
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Michael A. lagnocco, P.W.S.
5b. Business name
(if applicable): STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
5c. Street address: 100 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28208
5e. Telephone no.: 704 372-1885
5f. Fax no.: 704 372-3393
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ®No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: JD request is included.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: STV/Ralph Whitehead
Name (if known): Brandon Phillips, C.H.M.M. Associates
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtaineff

No ? Unknown
®
[??
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): parcel ID #'s: 03126302, 03107304, 03107305,
03107306,03107326

1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.299875 Longitude: -
80.945496
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 5.15 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: Gum Branch
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-IV
2c. River basin: Catawba
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
As noted on aerial photography (2009) viewed on the Mecklenburg County GIS, and verified by field review, the PSA is largely
developed as a residential development in an urban setting with a roadway and undeveloped, maintained, grassed lawns. Stream A
is located in the undeveloped, maintained, grassed lawn areas situated in the front yards of the residential properties. These front
yard areas are dominated by maintained grassed lawns with mature trees including red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and water oak (Quercus nigra). The banks of the stream channel are
dominated by saplings of the aforementioned tree species as well as box elder (Acer negundo), and shrubs that include Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and willow (Salix sp.). Herbaceous
vegetation within the banks of the stream channel included soft rush (Juncus effusus), violets (Viola sp.), and goldenrod (Solidago
sp.).
The PSA is relatively level to gently sloping along the stream corridor. The stream becomes a perennial RPW in the northeast
portion of the PSA, at the confluence of two drainage ditches that originate outside of the PSA.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the PSA, as described below, are limited to the two jurisdictional, perennial streams (See
Attachment B - Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map). The Request for Jurisdictional Determination form to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is found in Attachment B. Representative photographs of the PSA are also found in Attachment
B.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
871
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the Coulwood Sidewalk Project culvert replacement and stream restoration is to alleviate flooding for the residential
properties located along Gum Branch Road and enhance the aquatic functions of Stream A. The severely undersized pipe culverts
will be replaced by larger box culverts with associated floodplain culverts. The Coulwood Sidewalk Project also proposes to reshape
the cross section of Perennial RPW Stream A from an incised/vertical bank channel to a channel with bankfull benches and gentler
bank slopes to provide for more flood storage, and to alleviate stream bank erosion. Identified problems within the properties
surrounding the PSA and stream channel include the flooding of residential yards, and the erosion of the stream bank.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The PSA encompasses approximately 5.15 acres of a developed residential neighborhood along Gum Branch Road, where a stream
crosses through the front yards of the residential dwellings in the area of Kentberry Drive and Brimwood Trail in the northwest portion
of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC (Attachment C - Figures 1, 2, and 3). As part of the Coulwood Sidewalk Project, CSWS
proposes to replace four existing undersized culverts with buried box culverts that include floodplain culverts. Each proposed box
culvert that will be replacing an existing undersized culvert would consist of a large 7' X 4' "low-flow" reinforced concrete box culvert
paired with a perched 7' X 2' reinforced concrete floodplain box culvert for higher flow events. The floodplain culverts would be tied
into the up and downstream channel reaches using bankfull benches to maintain the channel dimensions in the vicinity of the
culverts. Each box culvert has a riprap lined plunge pool and riprap apron at the outlet to dissipate flow velocities exiting the
culverts. Plunge pools with riprap aprons are proposed in lieu of riprap aprons alone to decrease the amount of permanent impacts.
Additionally, approximately 608 linear feet of the remaining portion of the degraded, unnamed perennial tributary of Gum Branch
{Perennial relatively permanent water (RPW) Stream A) will be restored and enhanced by laying back and stabilizing the banks and
installing instream grade control structures that include outlet step structures on the proposed riprap plunge pools and an instream
cross vane (Attachment C - Sheet 1 of 6). A cast-in-place concrete headwall for a 53" X 34" elliptical pipe culvert would be placed in
the northeast portion of the project site and would discharge to a riprap lined ditch that would tie into a riprap apron at the inlet to the
longest of the proposed box culverts that will convey Perennial RPW Stream A under both Gum Branch Road and Kentberry Drive
(Attachment C - Sheet 1A of 6). The three buried box culverts that include floodplain culverts will be used to replace four existing
undersized culverts (Attachment C - Sheet 2 of 6).
Stream channel enhancements will include stream bank stabilization and an in-stream grade control structure. The stream bank
stabilization would consist of boulder toe protection, and the creation of stream bankfull benches. The regraded soils along the
stream banks would be stabilized with temporary biodegradable matting with a native riparian seed mix. The in-stream grade control
structure would consist of a rock cross vane with a log step. Utility relocations within the area would be required. Temporary stream
crossings to maintain access to residential driveways would also be required (Attachment C - Sheets 1 and 3 of 6).
The erosion control measures that include silt fence, safety fence and temporary sediment control structures shall be put in place
prior to construction. A temporary rock silt check shall be maintained downstream of any work that could flow to Perennial RPW
Stream B (Gum Branch). All work shall be subject to pump around operations when performed in the live channel. Channel work will
be sequenced from upstream to downstream areas. New channel sections will be completed and in a stable form before diverting
stream flows into the new channel sections. All disturbed areas will be restored to their pre-construction state upon work completion.
The proposed stream improvements will include the use of temporary cofferdams and temporary slope drains during construction as
part of a pump-around plan to provide continued base flow to the downstream areas of RPW Stream A while working in dry
conditions. Based on the drawings prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., one cross vane with a log step will be installed
within the stream in the central portion of the PSA to provide grade control and enhanced instream habitat. This permanent grade
control structure will be constructed from stone that is lined with filter fabric, and have an added log step to mimic a natural log
headcut. (Attachment C - Sheet 3 of 6). Details on the proposed grade control structure, riprap plunge pools and riparian seedings
are depicted on Attachment C - Sheet 2A of 6.
The proposed project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 63 linear feet (378 square feet/<.01 acre) of the on site
stream (Perennial RPW Stream A). Perennial RPW Stream A is a jurisdictional, perennial RPW that was concluded to be aquatically
important. These permanent impacts would occur from the replacement of the existing, undersized pipe culverts and the
construction of the riprap lined plunge pool and riprap apron at the outlet. These impacts would be done under the requested
Nationwide Permit #3.
The proposed project would also result in temporary impacts to approximately 608 linear feet (3,648 square feet/0.08 acre) of
Perennial RPW Stream A. These temporary impacts would result from the temporary stream crossings required to maintain access
to residential driveways, and the channel improvements that will include bank stabilization, flood bench construction and the removal
of debris from the existing channel. These temporary impacts, when completed, will result in an overall net increase in the stream's
aquatic resource functions. These impacts would be done under the requested Nationwide Permit #27. Utility relocations undertaken
in the PSA as part of the project would result in no additional impacts to waters of the U.S.
Typical construction equipment to be used will include track hoe and backhoe excavators, bulldozers, and dump trucks.
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ®T realignment, unnamed trib to ® PER ® Corps 6 608
enhancement Gum Branch ? INT ® DWQ
3 Culvert
S2 ® P ? T replacements, unnamed trib to ® PER ® Corps 6

riprap lined plunge
Gum Branch
? INT
® DWQ 63
pools and aprons
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 671
3i. Comments: 63 linear feet of permanent impacts is anticipated to Perennial RPW Stream A. The remaining 608 linear fe

impacts will be temporary until the channel work has been completed and the new channel is stabilized and aquatic functio
Jis
enhanced.
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ® Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: Catawba buffer rules apply to main stem only.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Due to the nature of the project, avoiding impacts to Perennial RPW Stream A while achieving project goals is not possible. There is
no practicable alternative that would achieve the project purpose of restoring the stability and enhancing the stream that would avoid
or result in less impact to waters of the U.S. Plunge pools with riprap aprons are proposed in lieu of riprap aprons alone to decrease
the amount of permanent impacts. Best management practices (BMPs) will be used and appropriate erosion and sedimentation
controls will be installed and maintained during construction activities to allow for the least adverse effect on the stream channel and
associated water quality.
Approximately 63 linear feet of the perennial portion of Stream A will be permanently impacted and all the remaining portions of
Stream A (608 linear feet) will be restored and enhanced by the proposed channel improvements.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Sedimentation and erosion control plans have been prepared for pre-construction and final conditions of the PSA. Sedimentation
and erosion control devices were designed in accordance with appropriate City and State erosion and sediment control ordinances
and will thereby equal or exceed the requirements specified in the latest version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Manual. The initial excavation and grading of the stream channel would be done in the dry using cofferdams and diversion ditches
for the pump-around operation, with sedimentation and erosion control devices clear of any jurisdictional waters.
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to follow the General Conditions of the USACE
Nationwide Permits (Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 10; updated March 19, 2007), applicable USACE Wilmington District Regional
Conditions, and applicable NCDWQ consistency conditions (November 2007).
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, w hich mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) T Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 9of13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a . What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? <1 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c . If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Stream enhancement/stabilization
project, no impervious surfaces to be constructed; channel improvements would resu lt in an overall net increase in the
stream's aquatic resource functions.
2d . If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e . Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Charlotte-Mecklenburg
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
apply (check all that apply): ? USMP
? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): El Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes [1 No
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project involves culvert replacements and channel improvements along approximately 671 linear feet of an existing
degraded stream (Perennial RPW Stream A) located in a residential development in an urban setting to alleviate flooding. The
project will not encourage additional development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ?
Raleigh
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA EFH website.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The National Register was consulted and indicated that there are no sites listed on the National Register within one mile
of the project area. The Mecklenburg County POLARIS web site was reviewed and indicated there are no historic sites
located within one mile of the project area.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Stream restoration and enhancement project.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM map #3710451600J on-line
Isaac J. Hinson, P.W.S. {!
t 3/29/11
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
Attachment B
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
-Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
-USAGE Stream Quality Assessment and NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
-Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
-Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
-Routine Wetland Determination Data Form
-Photographs
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: March 29, 2011
COUNTY Mecklenburg- TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 5.15 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Coulwood Sidewalk Project
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Isaac Hinson, PWS
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2844 [phone] Fax [phone]
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Michael Iagnocco, PWS
1000 W. Morehead St., Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 [phone]
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in plarining stages
(Type of project: Culvert replacements and stream restoration)
( ) No specific development plaimed at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) Site Location Map (Attachment C - Figure 1)
(X) USGS 7.5' Mountain Island Lake NC (1999) Topographic Quadrangle (Attachment C - Figure 2)
(X) NRCS Soil Series Data - Mecklenburg County (2002) (Attachment C - Figure 3)
(X) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Attachment B)
(X) Proposed Impacts (Attachment C - Sheets 1- 6)
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit (Attachment A)
( ) Agent Certification of Authorization Form
(X) Stream Classification Forms (Attachment B)
(X) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (Attachment B)
(X) Representative Photographs (Attachment B)
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Isaac Hinson, PWS
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID#
DWQ #_
Perennial RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte-Mecklenburg SWS
3. Date of Evaluation: 3/11/11
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary to Gum Branch
7. Approximate Drainage Area: <100 acres
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 ft.
Aahft-
"?qw
2. Evaluator's Name: B. Phillips
4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 pm
6. River Basin: Catawba
8. Stream Order: 2nd
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): west of Kentberry Drive south of Gum Branch Road
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 35.299875°N -80.945496°W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Existing culvert replacements stream restoration
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cool, sunnv recent rain
15. Site conditions at time of visit: cool, sunnv
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of t valuation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface ar
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 90 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
10 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
21. Bankfull Width: 6 ft 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3 ft
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 48 Comments: Perennial RPW
Perennial RPW Stream A an unnamed tributary of Gum Branch was determined to have perennial flow within project limits.
Evaluator's Signature / Date knvi1rL 4 This channel
evaluation fom is intende to be used o ly as a guide to assist landowners otal professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Perennial RPW Stream A
ECOREGIO N TRANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 - 0-5 3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
Q, (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
(tine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
E-4
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Cn 15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
H
1
Habitat complexity

0-6

0-6

0-6

2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points

23 Evidence of wildlife use

(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAI, SCORE (also enter on first page) 48
T i nese cnaractertsttcs are not assessed in coastal streams.
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 03/11/2011 Project/Site: Coulwood Sidewalk
Perennial RPW Stream A Latitude: 35.299875 deg N
Evaluator: B. Phillips County: Mecklenburg Longitude: -80.945496 deg W
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 35
0 Stream Determination (cgiig Other Mountain Island Lake, NC
.
' Ephemeral Intermittent
) e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 18.0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 1.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 1.0
ripple-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 1.0 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel 3.0 No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9 )
12. Presence of Baseflow 2.0 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1.0 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? 3.0 No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = $ )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 2.0 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2.0 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0.0 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0.0 0
_ 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed 0.5 FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Perennial RPW based on flow, OHWM, and sediment deposition

Sketch:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Coulwood Sidewalk Project
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.299875° N, Long. -80.945496° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: N 3906300.0 E 504955.4 Zone: 17S
Name of nearest waterbody: unnamed tributary to Gum Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 3/10/2011.
® Field Determination. Date(s): 3/11/2011
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S. within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the US." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: Perennial RPW Stream A = -671 linear feet: -6 width (ft) and/or -0.1 acre; Perennial RPW Stream B
(Gum Branch Creek) = 200 linear feet: --45 width (ft) and/or -0.2 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section Ill below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known:
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
3 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of rum/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by.
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: .
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: non-jurisdictional stormwater conveyance.
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is fi•om: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
I Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Raparros Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Perennial RPW Stream A (unnamed tributary of Gum Branch) has an OHWM, well-defined bed and
bank, moderate flow, sediment deposition, and crayfish. Perennial RPW Stream A is depicted on the USGS topographic
quadrangle, but not on the SCS Soils Map, and flows to Perennial RPW B (Gum Branch). Perennial RPW B (Gum Branch)
has an OHWM, well-defined bed and bank, heavy flow, sediment deposition, fish and crayfish. Perennial RPW B (Gum
Branch) flows to Long Creek (Perennial RPW), which flows to the Catawba River (TNW).
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IiI.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: Perennial RPW Stream A is -671 linear feet -6 width (ft); Perennial Stream B is -200 linear fect
45 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section II1.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section 11I.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general role, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above ( l -6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
'See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiedon Following Rapanos.
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Attachment B - Approximate Jurisdictional
Boundary Field Map.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24000, Mountain Island Lake, NC (1999).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, Sheet 3 of 13 .
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Mountain Island Lake, NC.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Mecklenburg County GIS 2009.
or ® Other (Name & Date): Photos (03/11/11).
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The limits of potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Stream A and Stream B
(Attachment B - Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map) were approximated using a Trimble GeoXH hand-held GPS unit capable
of subfoot accuracy. Stream A, an unnamed tributary to Gum Branch, was determined to be a relatively permanent water (RPW) with
perennial flow based on an OHWM, well-defined bed and bank, moderate flow, sediment deposition, and crayfish. Perennial RPW Stream A
is depicted on the USGS Quadrangle as a stream feature, but not on the USDA Soils Survey. Perennial RPW Stream A flows to Stream B
(Gum Branch). Stream B was determined to be a relatively permanent water with perennial flow based on an OHWM, well-defined bed and
bank, heavy flow, sediment deposition, fish and crayfish. Perennial RPW Stream B (Gum Branch) flows to Long Creek (Perennial RPW),
which flows to the Catawba River (TNW).
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Coulwood Sidewalk Project City/County: Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services State: NC
Investigator(s): Brandon Phillips, C.H.M.M. Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex
Subregion (LRRor MLRA): Southern Piedmont Lat: 35.299875 Long: -80.945496
Soil Map Unit Name: MO - Monacan loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ?, Soil ?, or Hydrology ?, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ?
Are Vegetation ?, Soil ?, or Hydrology ?, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No ® Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes ? No
Remarks:
Upland area located adjacent to perennia l RPW
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is req uired' check all that apply) ? Surface Soil Cracks (136)
? Surface Water (Al) ? True Aquatic Plants (614) ? Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
? High Water Table (A2) ? Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ? Drainage Patterns (B10)
? Saturation (A3) ? Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Rocks (C3) ? Moss Trim Lines (B16)
? Water Marks (B1) ? Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ? Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
? Sediment Deposits (132) ? Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ? Crayfish Burrows (C8)
? Drift Deposits (B3) ? Thin Muck Surface (C7) ? Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
? Algal mat or Crust (64) ? Other (Explain in Remarks) ? Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
? Iron Deposits (135)
? Geomorphic Position (D2)
? Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ? Shallow Aquitard (D3)
? Water-Stained Leaves (B9) ? Microtopographic Relief (D4)
? Aquatic Fauna (B13)
? FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (Inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): Wetlan d Hydrology Present? Yes ? No
(Includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
DP 1 was determined to not have wetland
10 A hydrology.
Sampling Date: 3/11/11
Sampling Point: DP 1
Slope (%): 2
Datum:
tastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP 1

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) Absolute Dominant
% Cover Species? Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Scientific Name Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
5. Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B)
7. Prevalence Index worksheet:
8. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
+ Total Cover OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius )
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
1. Scientific Name
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
FAC FACU species 55 x 4 = 220
2. Acernegundo 15 Yes W UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
3. Column Totals: 95
(A) 315 (B)
4.
5. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.3
6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. ? Dominance Test is >50%
8. ? Prevelence Index is 553.0'
9. ? Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
10.
15 =Total Cover Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter radius )
1. Scientific Name Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
2. Phytolacca americana 50 Yes FACU Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,

3.
Lonicera japonica
15 Yes +
FAC approximately 20 ft (6m) or more in height and 3 in.
- (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
4. Gallium obtusum 10 Yes FAC
W- Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. Lamium amplexicaule 5 Yes NL approximately 20 ft (6m) or more in height and less
6. Geranium maculatum 5 Yes FACU than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
7. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
8. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
9. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
10. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody

11. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of heigh.
8 =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Scientific Name
2.
3. Hydrophytic
4. Vegetation
5 Present? Yes ? No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below).
DP 1 was determined to not have hydrophytic vegetation.
" """y -"' - "'V--a Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-7 10YR 4/6 100 sandy
7-18 5YR 4/4 100 sandy
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grai ns. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
? Histosol (Al) ? Dark Surface (S7) ? 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
? Histic Epipedon (A2) ? Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) ? Coast Prairie Redox (At 6)
? Black Histic (A3) ? Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
? Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ? Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
? Stratified Layers (A5) ? Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
? 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) ? Redox Dark Surface (F6) ? Red Parent Material (TF2)
? Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ? Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ? Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
? Thick Dark Surface (A12) ? Redox Depressions (F8) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
? Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, ? Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, 0, P, T)
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
? Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ? Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) ' Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
? Sandy Redox(S5) ? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) wetland hydrology must be present,
? Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No
Remarks:
DP 1 was determined to not have hydric soils .
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
Photograph 1
A view of the start of Perennial RPW Stream A at the confluence of two drainage
ditches in the northeast portion of the project study area.
Photograph L. A view of the pipe culvert crossing under the residential driveway in the northeast
portion of the project study area north of Gum Branch Road, looking downstream.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
March 29, 2011

?f 0
Ik,: ,,? ? r;????s --Fri y .?? ?? ???N??-?C
?(f/iy;J"
ll?,tF''" rti ! l? /'` vJi wad! t l?iIn!
AA
L
Photograph 3. A view of the existing Perennial RPW Stream A pipe culvert crossing under Gum
Branch Road in the northeast portion of the project study area, looking upstream.
Photograph 4. A view of the existing Perennial RPW Stream A headwall and pipe culvert
crossing under Kentberry Drive in the northeast portion of the project study area.
Y
f N?
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3
March 29, 2011
?1
4 "
• 4/?, ?t
1

'K ? lOS,Y •.. Y4

F a- .
'
".
t
4f %

.'SF.
M s$
.
^Y.
?
?
• .?:1. t 1 q

_?4 6? 'n0 wry .?y + *4 w
` ? rn . 9 ? +db ? ?? » * ewe ??+ ? ' p ? '»k
.. . 7. W,?,ya, r . . C . i"a. ?'J', n.. •, :v. d' t ,:?.. 1 iT' ? .f:...?Ti:
Photograph 5. A view of a sanitary sewer line crossing Perennial RPW Stream A, looking
upstream toward Kentberry Drive.
6 r??t
z .•
r`s:44
Photographi 6. A view of the pipe culvert crossing under the residential driveway in the central
portion of the project study area south of Gum Branch Road, looking downstream.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3

1Y
Photograph 7. A view of the existing Perennial RPW Stream A headcut located in the central
portion of the project study area, looking upstream.
1
Photograph 8. A view of one of the existing footbridges crossing over 11crcimial RPW Stream A
in the western portion of the project study area, looking downstream.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3

Photograph 9. A view of the pipe culvert crossing under Brimwood Trail in the western portion
of the project study area, looking downstream.
W_
Photograph 10. A view of the confluence of Perennial RPW Stream A with Perennial RPW
Stream B (Gum Branch).
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services March 29, 2011
Coulwood Sidewalk Project - Request for JD and NWP #3 and #27
Attachment C
Figures and Permit Drawings
N
Coulwood Sidewalk Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
USGS SITE LOCATION
x MAP
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates
FIGURE 2
Reference: USDA-NRCS-NCGC Digital Raster Graphic MrSID Mosaic, Mountain Island Lake, NC Quadrangle, (1999) Scale: 1:24,000
.
Old Plank
{ Gle , Dr
Zed ?[" :' t r Gto.(e.? .
tr_
8en ? art
4??es
a Soo1t ? l tr ' rid Qti
•
1 C3ellrit~rr at r Q k d+';
?: ?: ,p ?T,? .,fir ? .?, ?? ? ,,.'•
a
x
rk '6° s: ? - .? fY r-r. e ? i? a ?.,. ?J? ??+v3t ? ? ? .r' V f''- ?•' _ '?O
m
rub t (mil 4 ac.
?" a F ? ? r Kr t? , ? r
°= t Appr xiniate Project Study Area
?? ,.., wry:, ?, ? •, k,
,.
Ot
od cx
f 4.
? ''A. ?'?, 3 ?s S.. gyp. ,? ? b ? *• .- .. _.- 3 lf??,?tt ~h`
} r g9G xR Or
yy• C ,Fr
AQ?
711i W
odler 9 co, 0 0.125 0.25 0.5
g tr ??--?- ;. { a w
Mil
'r
• r ` .':_? a c? ..=_.?y. mod` -? ?. 9.. ^
Reference: NRCS Soil Series Data, Mecklenburg County, NC (2002) Scale: 1:12,00(
Mapped Soil Units in the Project Studv Area ce raa.4ram«hM
EnD - Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes STORM
a.. ,._._. r ?. 'VATER
MO - Monacan loam Suvrcea
Coulwood Sidewalk Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
x
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates
SOILS MAP
FIGURE 3
£bO-SO-ZiS .aagmnN pafoad jLjgfo2Id S)I'IVAjg(HS (,OOAAZl10J :amgN laafoad
?I
I??I+
• a
ne
e s a y m .°
a $ z F w
d e •W e ? d
o a s w? o
a w? w a a
a
W
n e e a
d?
W W ar 'E 'L'
'a U`7p? a a d 3
a ? 3 G m ?
e°
v, F w vr. W W W
i
V
x
10
QO -0--o
^^? V
? •IL?I
a a
O ?
?i
GCS y
O
O
U ?
a
w
L aF
[^ O
Z
rw
a?
O
w
• CD
Z Q
~
Z
a
w?
Z_
0
Z
w
:z7
X
A
'" N? H 4^ v, 4 4
N ? v v x ? ^
i U W x i?
e F
e y
a -
` v
m t
d C y v
d U
e
? c o p` s n
U 3 h e. F W U U C? U
II Cg ?gQQQ?QQ00 ¦ * ¢ r ®? t ?: O 1 1
II J
I I
II
II a
ti
e
v o
r a
v '
i s o o E? i e t F
e d = a m 3 u a '? ?" ? ° m .9 '• i ? m ? ? ? 6 g ye°. ? ? ? a 5
° •a ?" .. g ° ? u, '? o e ? ? S w e e e ? ,o .i +s a V y A ? o $ ` rl
G 9 .$ a y O a a°, p' p" E• S .? °' a `TJ ail s B 'd P. U
.o E$ u n n •e w 9 9 a ?` .°^'. .'?3 m a m_ ' i 67 m o E o `° ? '° m > d '° 3 u W
= 8 w a0 a h ° v, F ?' W U Q u C7 U C7 a m g w
a F 3 3 F d 'w v 'a s a d b d d b O d d °
m m m m m m m m m m m m m s m m y ?
? ?2 ? +°c ?_? a r a? o y e .? o? a s? .? a d o a o s o° e v o o a? o 0
a a a a a a a >, a° a a? ° G. W a s o. a o. a s •? a. a
w w a w w w w w a w w w a w P. w a w a. w o a ., w it w a d` F a '??, a a a a a` a` a o` a a`
" O"a
I
N
Z °
O Q ?
yCF
oVm
Vp
Z?
m i
O u
O U Q
a m !-
z
Z
OV
U
z?
m
o?
r.7
-
O F O 1
m
F;
. Zw
a oU?
?U° °zd
Zm z
°? d OiHE
z' a aQ?'OZ\ON ACT
4 ??? C7
ws ?QQ 0
ti
o
t Y1 s 63 Nn
O C
a ao a m m
W 1a
° Q ° Z
.. to > -P>a m h m
°
U `
x =_
O
G:. e E
.c G c
? o
A
c c c
u U 7
k
uc
o
V ,arm
>
zOU<
?
°
-
Eos
Fa a
Z?
o?
v?
zs
u>
m
0
O
con

? E"'
I o ° w
a
bw
O? A

W
? a
z

C4
a
W
a
0
G

v
m ?
9 o=n 9
p,
E v`,
?'
d u 3

'
OQ
Oo
5, E
W
W D U U U E, .. C
o e ? e
v
O O ?
N
' G
o °
? V
? 0. L y
0
W
a ?
d N
x
? a
O F-
.•7 U
W
h
O
C.
V)
z
0
H
U
w
U
W
a
O
a
Q
A
z
N
0
0
N
o
c
N V p ?
M [? oc
? rl O
N
O N O ry M
_
C
N v1
)
U) A
w
? i U
M
v'
a'
?
C
•u
L ~ M
O u t W
2Z +rO
a? V R v
tn u °o
Y `O
I£IS £££ (1,06
eu
oie
'a
o
e
io
v v0
oIto s0 A8 a3AOHddY
` J J ffM H
p
gU
g
U gi
37
LTZBZ
`
.....
?
a 9-1S
00£ a3. aAUQ Kied aAo1ieqj I596
mS ?
. .2 Agll.m n xe a3NVd'3Nd i??Ti ?7?7?711?JV
-
T

ul'saleloossy put

tli

811
T W
VH
d
s
1Vl\l. V Q??74 (1
.L

o
woH
-AalwlH ??a H1Vd 3 1A Ovo
Yd

,• Hd-J 3-fLogwsw\ - L00tlJ fL0 9lOSl
0 T (? r? ??
17?rQv ?d x lV/Y1.7/?7[ 11117
-1L?
?7

•
$ Pale aid sueld
nOlldltlT
AU
31vo
ON
•''••...:......••`V
39VDS

,OS=-L
ON sor

U09LOS10 /? ? ('?

IIOOmrlllOj

L93HS
S3laVA .l
"L?
p?
?n
3
3
vN
io
I I "?
I I C -
I I ..
0
¢i
ter:;;
I;
x -
JF/
0°-
°
3¢z
o¢<
U W
w3a
Z W _N
p°I
¢ O W w
a20z
xo
a ??N
U
z°
?m
3
?o
z
Fo
N <
K
W U

Wa
o
a ?N
ao
I z ?m
U
2
N
i>
' N

Sao =
w=? w?
O m
IzO
w °w
ooW
o ¢
?w ?°
m< z
O?
wm? w o
I
m S Z O Z
K~W ?JO
oww? w
0io. zao
°a
Z
U
U
O
F z I- a
w w a =il
N .s l of , i o Pl_ N w
..I I III o'o
w
Z
Z N o
J N
° ? I[1
2 ?
° U z
2 ?
m ? ¢
J ?
J``a
y2K
U
¢ W
m
U
?p
of
.o.a
a
? o
a
W w
C7 <
w Z v
rn
D
E
z
s a
1
a
< pY z
0, W
?Ws a
IINX=
_ o
z
wm
v
ML 3
m
W
U
W
z

~

O

O

X CD

Fa-- o l o
z
wz?u
^
W W
U
i Z
W N o
`? .n
f 0 0 0 0 0 ?¢Wa i
o?mo oa
of (if O U
Nm<
oa
\
Q d W W
CL o
NWN m
z cn 3°0=
o m W a ZF
? =o
cj `'' Z
U
14 Q a

Z ? = ww?-z a"
°3w mo
m I_Z Q

Z 4

F W O O
4 NOZ? HN

U
X
_U
y
Q
u
n
C
F
YZFd a
Z
co

Q p W V

e !v

¢

l
N

Q O

Z
Q F

Q
U

2 W

w V

j 4j

O
2 f/l

5 V Z W Z
Z ~ -
w°?° acs
?
o=

-
U E
Z
v
e
CJ CO U
a
t
v
w ¢
u
Y? u z a
_
m
¢s ?l Z W U < Z Z Z [. y Q
x 2 c' ?' 2 o j J O
O
Qi
U VI In 4VI
h O
j
W ~
O
co
?1 V
2 O V
Z 5
2
Q N
=Uw
¢ N zo
a r cn <oNm o¢
°
Q W x z°
w
F
Q Z
W W a s
¢wm?
2
¢w
¢<
CL
::>
Z z
u
i
w
N

?
LAJ

Z

Q Q

K

W Z

c
<

a

3

w
}

m ziin
o?
???? mwy -

a
S N
w
r -
NOw o
0- U o -
z
z
o
Q
U z
<<
c? o.
o
U N G
0, 3
a o N
o O
z
o S
o: r
o I..o z
amWOOowT>
o
In 3 F Z 3 m m z- <
m
U7 Y
0_ m 3
N ¢
> O
K - w
n o >
_ Z [V
nv

W ?

nm
U a
E-
C')

LA

w
U

m
Q
a o
w F II
II
a °
W E F
Z d E
a:?
" II ??
Q Z

? E-
w 1m z z
w
F

? o?
I o 0
O I
Q w
xF
-J+ o
n ^
o
Z ?a
tt
?
U
< O x lx/I
;
2
o
m
<m
Z
S _ U O
Oz J o
¢U f PW?
_ I' ^ w

N om zzz
?
uospny poi ;(q wdgb:Z LLOZ 'LO qad I-1S
L iw 11-`?
TF-?-I 'S?C

N?
W
O
z
Cf)
I)
U U
F
P4
E O
m z
x
x
C
a,
w
E-
UT
I In
WF?
a a?
Ws°
=ate
i3w3H?
<a?GNS
zII
Ri
U] H
£LO\a11oI?o4O to 4110 aIOS

C7
z
W e°-
? F ?
zz z
oW ?_
U0
-
?
U
ldi a a
V)
\:N :awou BuImoJO
I£IS-£££(VOL)'gd
8
O
la
ia
o
9 O al-va
o Asa3AONddV
LV 1???
V 1 7J u
J
N
l
3 W
qj
LIZSZ
'
M

• f 10 ao C

9-l..

0
00£ alms
418.1 auopeg3 IS9b
?
?.Z
A943 NVd
AB Q93Nd
1"? 1i/??-7??L? ?
?T{-7 v 7 [?

ou 'sal
o y pue '?y?!f
9///
?jy?r ?
`
HVI
lE1M ,
1_lloll ?l V Cl? l??L V ?Q.L ?7
.?O
ujo
wo
H?_I: ,
?
Q _
( HLYd 3 u avo
Yd 1Hd-Ja-CL0910S10 SNtlld 00tlJ CLO MOSt0 133foUd x IVM3(1IS V L- 1 C
® g page aid soeld votteiuxla is alva a: ............ v7N C[09t09t0 QOOM ill?? 133HS

p5°
(V
U)
Q
m
m
n9-.? N
m m
i') ? C V N
Q >
Cn
Q
0
N N M (7I
x x Z
M M C V N W
x
Q
(V m
O O l7 .-
a o Q
s m
o
N N ?
N
Q
o ? 1
i
? O?
uwj II
> 0- oO
O
2
U 2
p C9
z
9
Q
a
2
O J y 9 N to O
W
J N U
U ?
o
co
a ,.4/L Z
Z
r
?W
B?
(V j ? x0? T.?
?U 9U_
_ ? N U
U ? m
a > Ud
Z t
Q J
J
a
u
nEL
4
F-
a
W
LL
F-
W
C
U
z
O
U
Z
O
F-
Q
W
W
W m
Um
3 0 v o rn M u
O
W O J
W O
r V D O
= ? Z
W ~
W
Z
Z
of V

O Q

O >
O
¢ o
LL 8
?
U r
N
? r
W
? rn
O
N m
M
N
O
m
Q
J U
L)
ZO
U

V Z
W
J (D io
it e o v v e
i
a >
a
1- Q Q
iV
a ry
V Z O N
W Y ro
J (7 y
> v a d
N UJ w w O
e F- ? N ? N N_
(V Z tD O .1 r
W
J
3
H
S
O
N
r
N
r
N
N
U) - -
_ = B tD ZD ZD
o z r
W LL '
3 Z
W U
xk
O
V
V
V
N
Z F (V V R d' O
9
~ V Z O N D N
V ' J d' iD rx) iD
ar
0
L m
7L
r
r
r
r
r
L W 0 F 0
- 0 0 Q Q
~ N Z m m W
2 ' J in iD i? i? io
7 N
N
¢ ik M M M V V
a
?e
N
z

e
2

ZD

:-

eo
O
u) N Z
W
N 7
N
V
z J
w
?
s
it
in
cD
<D
r
r
<V N OD
Z R r

?
N
N
N M
V h m

N [7 l7 (M V
? V ? V d
J ? ?Di O T

N :p m, tD F.
tD
Z0 Y v ° o iv iD
Z N N V
W
V
C
V

2 O

(V m (

M D

M m
V
V R V V
1-
M
m
M
v
H
W W
M ?
-
M
R
N
Q Q M v) t D n 0
N
2
? ?
- ? t
N ?
N m
N V
M
a
m M v ? n
W
a
a
a
Qi
U
E--'
r.?
NW
W
O
a
a
d rUn
W O
x ?-
O
W z
E-
W
U
z
O
U
W
U
a
i
z_
E--
co
Qi
U

3
I?
a
u
uospny-poj xq wdg4 'Z LLOZ 'LO qa3 Vt-1S Bmp ry32f1S-£L09t0\SNV?d\OOVJ\poomino0 qjo\aj)ojjog0 )o x,o 9tOSt0\A30P-3S0\.N _-7
2
1
I£TS-£££(DOL)'9d 3
tl

LTZSZwuq-uatwoN`auo
-
V •' • 1
0 ARCOAMMY
T?? ??vn? 7?1
;k,o•k,V iQ?iW l
9j
OO6 aamS'anuQ 7llkd auo
ak .. of -o >o
9-
LE
i
qj TS917 AB U3NJffiIJ A909kva3aa
7 {.?
?? ?
-
aul saieioossy pue
'
? Htll 1NN , i?rF7 v 7 [?
a
fmlla v fm l v ?dis do
?
?
woH_ Y.
Y?v Hdtld391dOtlJ
LHd::O 1'10910510 SNtlld OOVO CZ0 91OS10
133foUd ?I IdM?QIS
Z-1S
gPalk a.Id SQkld
aoLLdltlx3a
A9
31v0
ON V
"'°• rVis
,05=.1 ON 00f
U09WS10 rOOM 11103
/ (l
133Hs
3° l
jW
,'I ci
?o
3 W
O
O
u
Z
O
O
0
u
z
0
J
J
Q
Z

ao
z?
80
Z
o
0
u
o
0
0
oo
J
O
w
C°t
00
80
i
0
J_
Q
W
C0 i
Z
O
O
W
z
0
0
0
o

Z

de o'
Fo ?
¢ u
3
0
o
J
Q
0 i
Z
W
r Q~•l
?l
R?
o€
S?
?a
?m l
6 9
To
3 u
o
O
J
Q
O
Z
W
N F
0J

3$ V?
°b g
o
¢ tl
3
O
O
u0spnq p0j :Aq wd9b:Z I IOZ 'LO qaj Z-15
zw
J zw ax
Za w i ?z o o Fz a ¢'¢' o'Q
a,T -o w w v°i .-c»i
Q W... aao°Nrv z<?o?a?uu am of mo°° ??°xo
`. Qwa ? I o3 o°?m?w rr¢U? o?vl?
M Q N w m VII N O° N N a a a a S a°° z ut ¢ F Fo a
m Z3mp zN??? w oOd?N pUd SQ:K w ¢O
J z.ozriNaz '13o ZUO 'S¢ZVR.26 Oa,,
F w ?oWw3c'?oo?wwo In `?°vl aQOmz?u oaoT°F
<,m F O
of < W WOK ; 2< O 2; 3¢ m? OZ °w Q o a° W x u vi a U
Q
7>?°°amaow??az??mc?a< ¢Ow i mZlno¢pw 3o
d Q m K F a W J 6¢ 3 K 2 N p? Q~ z m > m O z
W <zw pwK3 ¢Z ¢?Ztnz Vwi?? wo 3F>Q?gz ??lnmU
z- °wmo o l awoo ?mvi o m
Q ¢a-mom'''
a 3'n?m;?wa??.?x?xooow N o N?wia?? ciJm°=cw.l
z NZZm o a`^??a Om ?'^a"u? Y?wa? °mcwi4
o-?ww m'.T ?4
¢ zmos?aaz?o?a?w?m>ot-=m
w°wm "z3v z. Pa•-?z om?oxN o
o FxzaxowoKry wxzwoia?ozKa¢?z°o zY
?3wUw U?no_ >UO?U?3oUa??n¢wUwo:3f-.myl¢U¢?tn
X
? lV rj VI Q
Z
Y
¢ p m O¢° m W N U X
N D U Q Z K 4 K m l m J O w VI
ZwF Zzw¢ W O 00 O-O U ¢m z VI
dOw ?W¢ Jwm °n-.N0,K wO w°wU a ?= UjN m ~ O x
2 3? KN ZCWjp?a wQ mpjcg?O,.mpa¢ ti z U w W NI-
w Z? wma?'A' rozZ?ozo?=o y oom?N vxi zQ Ka
?m Qamamo?.x--'^x?? ?ov?'i??auz?mo? ocizna?W F mo mwo
m oo xw- maw-az-,, om?°¢wz az
O °° W°Omxm )O zaYWO=mNmaLL- F?Qtx/I?Z? ? lo 'o °Ix
z
~ `o wwxm?z°u=o am??~omaNw= m°'x^aawF ?°WO
wx-aw
w
N N w W
m w? r'n ?o?a zrn inx -zo'nr , z'n
mo a?m°
Q m W ZpOwOO?Zw2 aN
O=_N ?OInWO JOZDZr" 2?°Z OFop
F m H U
W¢ wJZw-ZOS ?"- ?Nm Ow w20wr no ¢aa¢¢>o °W02 Uwr
Q WUxi? 2UZQw2>O?OKK OaZ?o0o00ZVlw xJQOZmo?UmO?Q?m
3 pz°z ?z-°3mcxiw Zz,on NO°ova°?>uloa??WV?aa
Q ZDaV?OQO21w-JJ???20w,UOh MFI'.Z .mK°KUozz Wes;
w J;¢?woza?pNOC.?In3Wjw?woFZ???4oooF?uoOa wVO?w.¢omp
= a?oov°o-mow wo_xomo zF xl- omn.a
-'omaow0 m,2,xz?zo o?ozo waQZa
I a Jmo??w °xo?i?i.a, v?°vm
W m<'
Za to EZOU Wam...< Uarum VlHaU?Vla 6d?-¢m
z
W
C7? N rj < h? n W rn ? -
J
Q
O ?
Z
W
N
C7 N
oa
jo
£0 0
3 W
O
O
'4O 10 43 9IOS
z
J w
< rc
D?
W
N
?l N
o?
?m
I
I
oa ?
N aw0u b-.,p
II II ,i °o __
II II II go
II II II
II II II
II II II
it II
II
II
II
I
I?

I£I5-£EE ?DOlJ'Rd 91v

LIM gupo
mo Ruo
`440
>

,• a
A803AOaddV
?,LL07?It NJ -
N
1-
o
a
m
anu
o
1e
a
3
-
?
.... Ol LO 40 9-15
;
g
Q
00£
77
d
RJ iS96
1
1 •
.?i'; Ae 09x?U Aa a9ava9aa ,r
r

ou 'Sa{EioOSSypue
HVI .
?NIQ?.
?da?.j.s

woH-(a?wi?{ ???
: Y
? Ndva3 71aavo
?o
••••' LMd-33-CL091O510 SNrld OOV3 C/n QtMI0 r ??roxa xzdnn4aTS e-ls
• a: a Palo
miaias?0
As
9tr0
oN •?
""" 31tlx
,0£-,i ON 90f
4L091OSt0
QooM 11_0
.L33HS
V-15 1_fzjrl? 4=1141 Ih11_Lvv1
c 2 1 e ?l. ,? ?r ?a d
T-I
ado
•- uz
1
d
? a„ .? ? 1
I
_F$
? $y 3
$G kG $F
a „
??
$m W ?m\ I
\
a
? m1© 1 ?s
? `t
I
? I
,1 1 1 r _ i.
€ I?
? i?
- m
1_--
?c Pfrse ? I \
?? ? 9f)[Gd 1 1
J
is I l' N
I 1
ii-
SS -, I
z.
(u, v I I ?. 1? a n
na o 1
F
N>
U J
E-+ N ++
> Y?'
a< a
C4 z < ??=
0
z S316VA
o'
e
_JZ 1
maw \
o
0.0
z w1V???
z O \
U i
N
EE-- E
zz
x
U
q
z
0
U
r
L"I"

r
l ^?
b ??N
E
o?
? W
3
o_
Q. \
\ r
?. gyp. ?? \e <<
a ?? o?
z, \? \ ,?n>? a
21
,A' ? ? o-
°r r
\\v` O
Uospnq PDJ 'Aq wdgi,:Z IIOZ 'LO qaj £-1S
i i ?v

/? /II ?1 o
Eg OVN?

0
a
u

2 L; 1z
x
o
m ?a
wj
°
o
W
0 0
11 o
o m`
wo 'oo WaiWo
oNO°
W'om 000 ?o
oia
'

I Wp
?o
owa
F> ma
I a y m
1 .
a3%v?u¢<
4 Z
- N wr r
oom U .
z?? z
?% ?rv
Z5
01 >
I <z

Zw Uioa ¢ ??

rc w co
z
F
3rv?u °
rv
o?
t p.
u
z
F v
i u

N 3
I f!1 $x ??
'O'M o0 M\-IM 40 1- 4110
:H :awou 6UIMD,n

I£IS-£££(VOL)'4d
LTZSZ euROie3
77o
a310
6 .1-1 11, 31v0

O A9a3no9adv

Ll.LO lIfl 4
N
1J
a
m
'M
l
a

?
'
""° l 1O eO
9-15
;
S
y
a K
ea 3U0jae93 IS96
00£ d
:
••.
O. d
y
AB 03Y] IJ
A8031IYd38d
q
-

9ul'sapoosSv pue ?,
Hrl
In IIQ V dgaH yHvaHls

30

uioH-AOIWIN U-12
; rb
o`er: Lava 371d aYJ
lHd-J3-1'[0910510\SNVId OOVJ 1'10 910510
I 3AfOHd }j IdM:IQIS
b-1S
gpai
NOIIAftlJS30
A8
11Y0
ON '• ,.••d vos
al01'°.l ON9or
TZO9109L0 aoo XW103
.I.93HS
??gnawaaA?""s? ?-
$ rv ... Wang
a 'a >rA418
an
spa 7 Rmn
marv cy? ?
SfA ills`as 81. 11
qu
- 61
Q' - a o
LJL /' - ? W
ys Q a
ill
I` ?g LS70
al X I °

WW
Op G?
o jk: ?2a
Nil
YW
? 1 I$
?S
c?
i IC
-Ps q po, :Aq wdLb'Z LLOZ 'LO qa.i 4-15
i
I
I
,
r
i
o
o a
0
ER OVN JN

o
zaa°?° ?
'o o°o a
U ?¢
U mw u

¢ O
zu
F O O J w
w
'o
o
k
? z
zz
o°o¢
- a
P. -z
z 6
>
°w
° n
4
x
c ? m=Na

m
w
-n° m
am
a O
N¢
Z?
3po
m o ?3 W
Z °
O
w
11 U
w
O
O
l zo o
z
ooo
Z w
OawZ
I N D
_
-?
Za¢ mU O
w U
° 1
m
a?
z o?
_ xow?
-
=
a=w _ wot

-
oom

-
??? m a Y =

o ?wp o
7? oo
a am°o az°
o
z
¢
J
wcl"i¢wmF
w

z
F
N
I

3
w ?
3
0
U p
z z
ti O
Vl O -
W V

i
w N o
N
C I O k'
w ?
m ?
L 2 ...I -
z p
??o 0 C
3
O

CLO\a11-1-13 J. A,io 9109L
ir)
o F
U

r4
U
.3
H
03

I _
Q 0'
T
0
A F

-
a F
2 ?
Q
w U
w
o ?

M E- l<

N „
,A301-]S3\:N 'awou 6mmo,0
I£IS-£££ (t'OL)'9d
Fu
-
O
O
'a
-' f? a va
o
xeaanoaaav
q
DW
U
LIZSZ
D
N
l
' •....
' f Lo vo 9-is
anuQIJJeaaMOIJe9aIS96
00£a3Ing ..,i?ti:
9.•'
:
? Aea3?nm3 A9 a3atld3aa ??iTii//il{
(? i?T v
?
r

®
®

auk 'saleiaossy pue M -
• ? ?
W'
HVI

imm .,
gNllll
VdgaH N V
i
?ds d0
'
woH-/aIwi){ U_?
: Yd u1a 313 dva
LHd-J3-fG091O510 SNtl3d OOtlJ fL0 9lOSL0
133fOHd N IdM3QIS
S-1S
g pare a1 g sne1 d ,volUMM A9 3110 09 ...... •••? ?yx '0N 90C
U09LOSLO QOOmr7 (1 Oa
1111
133HS
O
O
a
10
i
I
I
I
ll
16L49313 .I
94 'CZ 330
I
M
l
L.
I nl
r
I
90'6C9313
9L'lL-330
I
I
I
r
I
SZ'C49313I
9Z 4Z:330
1
1.
I
f
TZ- :J13
6Z'f2 330
i
I
I
I
f
I
--_-r_______-_-
I
I
t
I
66-ZV9 31311
9L'9Z 330
iI
n
tl
I
i\ ?„I1
l
I
I
SS 6C9313
Bb'C L- 330
J
1
I
I
I
L,
I
O
to
d03 X
0
n
I
I
----------------
[94493131
90 4Z 330
I
I
I?
l-
i ul
I
I
09449 313
6042- :330
I
I
$ n e
I
,I
C6'fz 330 •.
I
iM
1
C9"049 313
C6'b l- :330
N
o n'
N
MOa X-
d03 X-
0
M

I
--------
99'449313' --------
9S'4L 330

M'
99449 313
SC 'oz- Ado
m
n
a

I
C9Z49313
99 'CZ 330
I
I?
_I
it+
CC049313
L6 T L- d,10
0
O
Moa X3
1
dO3 X3
CS"9993 3
f 9'Lt 330
rl
9C999313
9l'4l- 330:

O
o N
+
a
3
rv N
o y
c

?^
e e
e
91
3

C9909313 1
CC'CL d30

M

o e?
I
9S909313
96'Cl- 330
Moil X3 -

? p

I 3
?
d03 X3

gospny-poj :nq wdLt,Z LLOZ 'LO qa3 9-1S 6MP'W32ll S-f L0910\SNV1d\OOVO\poomino0 fL0\allo NOyO 4- 4110 M5;LO\A301 3SO\'N '--
L£IS-£££(VOL)'ga
oa
O
'a
0
- 3JY0
-0-171-071-
0 ARa3A0addY
-7 p s ?yB??r ,r??rL
/ ,
:l?
l LTZBZ eag
e3 W
N
U
I
RD
° ".." ,
.
a
?V anuQgieda7lojJeq:) IS94
00£almg 9•'
.{?ti: AS
A003Ntld'3Hd
r
.
,
c?NIQ?
® ®
oul 's91EiJOSSy put - ,
_
W . Ntll 1aa .
.
??
??..? do

woH???
s ° H1Yd 3 1 0YJ

rd,
lNd-J3-f[091OS10 SNtlld OOtlJ\tL0 9lOSl0 r,?r vI
f,?al OuQ Il 1 V M.7QIJ'
9-lam
g Pam a 11011d[HX-M A9 1LY0 OK .....• O Cost ON 90f
fL09tOS10 (TOO!11,?A ri /1111O3
G 133HS

0
m
m
m
0
0
i
i

\

\
I
\..
1
1

\

\
>I9f9313,

a

^
I

11

i

I

I
I
9S 'n :3131
'

a

n

.,

.

QC :313
6C'L I JJO
I 90
6t:JJ0 I YC'6t :JJ0
k

n
o
0
o
___lll
i n ?

1 i Po' I
1
669C9313
96.909:313 f
9C'L I - :JJO 6 I'Lt-:JJO . 90'6f9 ,313
'
?

I
I
I

i

i
I

1 6C
L t-:JJO

0
i
cc'9e9313
L I'90:JJO .
i
\ t

M`
ff'049313
9Z'SZ-:JJO ,
I
996f9313
OC'IZ:330
L
N+
n
^i
LO6f9313
96'St-:JJO
0
I?
..Spmq p0, Xq wdLt Z tIOZ 'LO 9-A 9-15 bmP'W3a1S-tL0910\SNVld\OOV3\Puom 1-.0 CLO\.jj.p0g3 to 61i0 9L09L0\A301-350\-N '?wou 6wmo?0