M E E T I N G M E M O R A N D U M
PREPARED FOR: David Baker, PE, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS)
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
MEETING DATE:
ATTENDING:
S. Paige Baker, PE, MLE, Collins & Baker Engineering, PA (CBENG)
August 21, 2011
May 31, 2011
Staff/Consultant
Matt Anderson, CMSWS
David Baker, CMSWS
Paige Baker, CBENG
Amy Bice, CMSWS
Property Owners
One of Twelve Property Owners
A property owner meeting was held on Tuesday, May 31, 2011, to present information about the Coulwood Branch Stream Restoration project (Coulwood SR). One out of the twelve property owners invited was in attendance.
After introductions, Jarrod Karl, CMSWS, provided an overview of the CMSWS program.
He discussed the environmental impacts of City engineering projects such as roads, bridges, etc., to creeks and other water resources. He discussed the need for federal permitting if projects impact water resources and said that the City pursues restoration projects to comply with the federal permits and mitigate the environmental impacts to such water resources. He stated that the Coulwood SR project was a result of the City looking for opportunities to do restoration on public lands, since most of the project area was on
Mecklenburg County-owned land.
Jarrod continued by adding that Coulwood Branch was eroding, presenting some dangerous conditions. He discussed the active sediment and tree loss along the stream corridor. He concluded by stating that the City would like to restore Coulwood Branch to address these problems and to mitigate for impacts that other City projects were having to stream health in this and other nearby watersheds.
The property owner stated that she would like a pipe or a concrete lined channel for the section of stream (a tributary to Coulwood Branch) on her property. She was aware that other properties in her neighborhood had pipes and concrete-lined ditches.
Jarrod discussed her preference. He explained that the type of storm drainage system that she desired would require additional mitigation and thus would not be appropriate for the type of restoration project being planned for Coulwood Branch.

Coulwood Branch Stream Restoration:
Property Owner Meeting
May 31, 2011
Page 2 of 2
The property owner continued by expressing her concern for the amount of snakes she has observed in the creek on her property.
Jarrod explained that typical stream restoration activities made streams shallower to prevent erosion and would make the area safer as a result.
The property owner doubted the “safer” condition because the project would not get rid of the snakes.
Paige Baker, CBENG, added that stream restoration projects generally improved habitat conditions on stream corridors, giving more appropriate locations for snakes (and other species considered “pests” by many property owners) to live. A result of this, observed along other projects, was a reduction in human/pest interactions. Jarrod concurred and added that the project would open the stream corridor up to more sunlight immediately after construction and present a more attractive habitat for snakes than backyards.
Jarrod stated that the City was requesting an easement from the property owner to perform the Coulwood SR. He added that granting an easement to the City to do the proposed stream restoration would result in the City being responsible for maintenance in the easement. Such maintenance needs were typically handled in 12-16 months. Also Jarrod stated that any request for service from the City by the property owner would result in a similar request for an easement and in that case there was a 20 month to 2 year waiting list.
The property owner’s parcel was discussed specifically at this time. The City is currently not proposing very much, if any, actual construction on the parcel. Rather the drainage from the parcel will be “tied-in” to the stream restoration with grading beginning only once the channel leaves the property owner’s parcel and flows onto the Mecklenburg County parcel.
At this time there was no further discussion. David Baker, CMSWS, told the property owner that a City representative would be contacting her directly in the near future to discuss her specific property and the easement requested by the City. The meeting was then concluded.